10  .I5~.  oC. 


<^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    by    'Hcise) .  Vx'.AJ  .  cAc^wXc^ArA  . 

il.-...3^ 


A     ^    ^ 

Division 


Sec/ion 

BS    475    .D6    1905 
nature  ^  °^^5^"  ^"^ 


THE  BROSS  LIBRARY 

VOLUME  II 


THE   BROSS    LECTURES  •     •  190 Ji, 


THE    BIBLE 

ITS  OEIGIN  AND  NATURE 


SEVEN    LECTURES   DELIVERED  BEFORE 

LAKE    FOEEST    COLLEGE 

ON  THE  FOUNDATION  OF  THE  LATE 

WILLIAM  BROSS 
BY  THE  REVEREND 

MARCUS  *bODS,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF    EXEGETICAL    THEOLOGY 
IN   NEW  COLLEGE,  EDINBURGH 


CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 
NEW    YORK     ....      1905 


COPTEIQHT,    1905,    BY 

THE  TRUSTEES  OF  LAKE  FOREST  UNIVERSITY. 

PiTBLISHED    FeBEUAET,    1905 


Nortoooti  ^TtSS 

J.  8.  Gushing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


THESE  LECTURES 
are   (SratefuIIg   ©etiicatEti 

TO 

THE  PRESIDENT  AND  PROFESSORS  OF 

LAKE   FOREST   COLLEGE 

AND  TO  THE  OTHER   FRIENDS  THERE 

WHOSE    HOSPITALITY    AND    KINDLINESS 

MADE  THEIR  DELIVERY 

AN    UNUSUAL    PLEASURE 

AND    A   LASTING   MEMORY 

TO 

THE  AUTHOR 


THE  BROSS  FOUNDATION 

In  1879,  the  late  William  Bross  of  Chicago, 
lieutenant-governor  of  Illinois  in  1866-70,  de- 
siring to  make  some  memorial  of  his  son, 
Nathaniel  Bross,  who  had  died  in  1856,  entered 
into  an  agreement  with  the  "  Trustees  of  Lake 
Forest  University,"  whereby  there  was  finally 
transferred  to  the  said  Trustees  the  sum  of 
forty  thousand  dollars,  the  income  of  which 
was  to  accumulate  in  perpetuity  for  successive 
periods  of  ten  years,  at  compound  interest,  the 
accumulations  of  one  decade  to  be  spent  in  the 
following  decade,  for  the  purpose  of  stimulating 
the  production  of  the  best  books  or  treatises 
"  on  the  connection^  relation^  and  mutual  hearing 
of  any  practical  science^  or  the  history  of  our 
race^  or  the  facts  in  any  department  of  knowledge^ 
with  and  upon  the  Christian  Religion.^^ 

In  his  deed  of  gift  the  founder  had  in  view 
"  the  religion  of  the  Bihle^  composed  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour^ 
Jesus  Christ,  as  commonly  received  in  the  Pres- 
byterian and  other  evangelical  churches,''''  His  ob- 
ject was  "  to  call  out  the  best  efforts  of  the  highest 
talent  and  the  ripest  scholarship  of  the  world,  to 


viii  The  Bross  Foundation 

illustrate  from  science,  or  any  department  of 
knoivledge,  and  to  demojistrate.,  the  divine  origin 
and  authority  of  the  Christian  Scriptures ;  and, 
further,  to  shoiv  hoiv  both  Science  and  Revelation 
coincide,  and  to  prove  the  existence,  the  provi- 
dence, or  any  or  all  of  the  attributes  of  the  one 
living  and  true  God,  infinite,  eternal,  and  un- 
changeable in  His  being,  wisdom,  poiver,  holiness, 
justice,  goodness,  and  truth.^'' 

At  the  close  of  the  Trust  Agreement,  the 
donor  expressed  the  hope  that,  by  means  of  this 
fund,  the  various  authors  might,  "  every  ten 
years,  post  up  the  science  of  the  world  and  show 
hoiu  it  illustrates  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
existence  of  Grod,'"'  and  that  thereby  "  the  gospel 
of  our  blessed  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  glo- 
ries of  His  sacrifice  and  plan  of  salvation  "  might 
be  preached  '•'■to  the  end  of  time.'''' 

The  gift  thus  contemplated  in  the  original 
agreement  of  1879  was  finally  consummated 
in  1890.  The  first  decade  of  the  accumula- 
tions of  interest  having  closed  in  1900,  the 
Trustees  of  the  Bross  Fund  began  at  that  time 
the  administration  of  this  important  trust. 

The  Trust  Agreement  prescribed  two  methods 
by  which  the  production  of  books  of  the  above- 
mentioned  character  was  to  be  stimulated :  — 

1.  One  or  more  premiums  or  prizes  were  to 
be  offered  during  each  decade,  the  competition 


The  Bross  Foundation 


IX 


for  which  was  to  be  thrown  open  to  "  the  scien- 
tific men,  the  Christian  philosophers  and  histo- 
rians of  all  nations." 

Accordingly,  a  prize  of  six  thousand  dollars 
has  been  offered  for  the  best  book  fulfilling 
any  of  the  purposes  described  in  the  foregoing 
extracts  from  the  Trust  Agreement,  the  com- 
peting manuscripts  to  be  presented  on  or  be- 
fore June  1,  1905;  for  full  particulars  as  to 
this  prize,  application  should  be  made  to  the 
undersigned. 

Once  in  every  fifty  (or  thirty  years,  accord- 
ing as  the  Trustees  of  the  fund  may  decide  at 
the  time)  the  entire  amount  of  simple  interest 
accumulated  during  the  previous  decade  is  to 
be  offered  as  a  single  premium  or  prize  for  a 
similar  competition. 

2.  The  Trustees  of  the  Bross  Fund  were  also 
empowered  from  time  to  time  to  select  and  ap- 
point particular  scholars,  who  should  prepare 
books,  upon  some  theme  within  the  terms  of 
the  Trust  Agreement,  that  would  "  illustrate  " 
or  "  demonstrate "  or  commend  the  Christian 
Religion,  or  ani/  phase  of  it,  to  the  times  in 
which  we  live. 

Ordinarily,  it  is  proposed  that  the  writers  of 
the  books  thus  prepared  should  be  asked  to 
deliver  the  substance  of  such  books  in  the  form 
of  lectures  before  Lake  Forest  College,  and  any 


X  Tfie  Bro88  Foundation 

of  the  general  public  who  may  desire  to  attend 
them,  such  courses  to  be  known  as  the  Bross 
Lectures. 

The  Trust  Agreement  further  provides  for 
the  publication,  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Bross 
Fund,  of  tlie  books  prepared  under  either  of 
the  two  methods  above  described. 

Two  writers  have  already  been  specially  ap- 
pointed in  pursuance  of  the  second  method  :  — 

The  first  was  the  Reverend  President  Francis 
Landey  Patton,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  the  Prince- 
ton Theological  Seminary,  who,  in  May,  1903, 
delivered  a  course  of  five  lectures  before  Lake 
Forest  College,  on  "Obligatory  Morality." 
These  lectures  are  now  the  property  of  the 
Trustees  of  the  Bross  Fund,  and  will  be  pub- 
lished in  due  season  after  the  author  has  been 
given  the  opportunity  to  revise  and  expand 
them. 

The  second  of  the  writers  thus  specially 
appointed  was  the  Reverend  Professor  Marcus 
Dods,  D.D.,  of  New  College,  Edinburgh,  who, 
in  May,  1904,  delivered  a  course  of  lectures 
before  Lake  Forest  College,  on  "  The  Bible : 
Its  Origin  and  Nature."  These  lectures  are 
embodied  in  the  present  volume. 

As  a  token  of  the  donor's  affectionate  remem- 
brance of  his  "  friend  and  teacher,"  the  late 
Mark  Hopkins,  the  distinguished  President  of 


The  Bross  Foundation  xi 

Williams  College,  and  as  recording  his  own 
appreciation  of  the  notable  work  done  by  Presi- 
dent Hopkins  in  commending  the  Christian 
Religion  to  his  own  day  and  generation,  the 
founder  of  the  Bross  Fund  further  directed  its 
trustees  to  acquire  the  book  written  by  Dr. 
Hopkins  on  "The  Evidences  of  Christianity," 
and  to  publish  the  same  as  "Number  one  of 
the  series  of  books  to  be  prepared  under  the 
arrangement "  provided  for  by  the  Bross  Foun- 
dation. This  book  has  already  been  purchased 
from  the  executors  of  President  Hopkins'  estate, 
and  will  be  published,  at  an  early  date,  as  Vol- 
ume I  of  the  Bross  Library.  Dr.  Dods'  lectures 
are  being  published,  therefore,  as  Volume  II. 

EICHARD  D.   HAELAN, 

President  of  Lake  Forest  College. 

Lake  Forest,  Illinois, 
Christmas,  1904. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

I.    The  Bible  and  Other  Sacred  Books     .  1 

II.     The  Canon  of  Scripture  ....  29 

III.  Revelation  . 61 

IV.  Inspiration 99 

V.     Infallibility 131 

VI.    The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels  .  165 

VII.    The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Gos- 
pels    211 


THE   BIBLE  AND   OTHER   SACRED 
BOOKS 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED 
BOOKS 

The   designation   by  which   Muhammad  in  Saered 
the  Quran   usually  distinguishes  Christians  is  peculiar  to 

"the  people  of  the  book."     This,  however,  is  Christian- 
ity. 
merely  an  illustration  of  the  prophet's  limited 

horizon.  For,  in  point  of  fact,  the  possession  .^ 
of  sacred  scriptures  was  not  then  and  is  not 
now  a  distinctive  peculiarity  of  Christianity. 
Religions  now  extinct,  and  even  in  Muhammad's 
time  obsolete,  such  as  the  ancient  Egyptian  and 
Babylonian,  had  their  sacred  writings.  So  have 
the  great  religions  which  now  share  with  Chris- 
tianity the  adhesion  of  mankind,  —  Zoroastri- 
anism,  Brahmanism,  Buddhism,  Confucianism, 
and  Muhammadanism  itself. 

Singularly  enough  it  was  the  most  literary  No  sacred 

/.  .       ,  1  •   1  J  J    books  in 

01   ancient   races   which    possessed    no   sacred   Qreeceor 
writings.     Among  the  Greeks  their  place  was  -Ro^ie. 
filled  by  oracular   responses,  the   prognostica- 
tions of  augurs,  and  omens  of  various  kinds  ; 
3 


4  The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

while  the  traditions  regarding  their  gods  and 
the  most  authoritative  religious  and  ethical 
ideas  were  transmitted  in  Homer,  Plato,  and 
the  great  Tragedians.  In  Rome,  the  place  left 
vacant  by  the  absence  of  authoritative  scrip- 
tures was  filled,  as  the  nation  became  sensible 
of  religious  cravings,  by  the  didactic  philosophy 
and  preaching  of  the  later  Stoics.  And  although 
the  Greek  philosophers  and  tragedians  and  the 
Roman  Stoics  laid  no  claim  to  inspiration  or 
final  authority,  they  yet  wrote  on  an  extraordi- 
narily high  level  of  feeling  and  of  thought,  and 
they  gave  utterance  to  much  that  has  entered 
into  and  become  a  permanent  element  in  the 
religious  life  of  modern  Europe.  Teachings  of 
the  deepest  kind  regarding  the  moral  order  of 
the  world  and  the  relation  of  man  to  things 
unseen  abound  in  their  writings,  which  are  still 
read  with  admiration  and  with  profit.  Yet 
those  remarkable  utterances  cannot  be  classed 
as  sacred  books. 
Sacred  The   great   Eastern   religions,  however,    are 

East  ^  ^^^^^  ^'^  sacred  scriptures.  Until  a  few  years 
ago  all  these,  with  the  exception  of  the  Quran, 
were  locked  up  in  little-known  languages,  — 
Zend,  Sanskrit,  Cingalese,  Chinese.  Recently, 
however,  they  have  been  rapidly  made  accessi- 
ble to  the  English-reading  public,  especially  in 


The  Bible  and   Other  Sacred  Books         5 

the  great  series  of  "  The  Sacred  Books  of  the 
East,"  initiated  and  edited  by  the  late  Professor 
Max  Miiller,  and  already  numbering  about  fifty 
volumes. 

It  has  become  the  fashion  in  certain  quarters  Character 
to  magnify  these  books  and  to  leave  it  to  be  ^^qaT^ 
inferred  that  there  is  little  to  choose  between 
them  and  our  Bible.  It  might  be  enough  in 
correction  of  this  phase  of  religious  dilettantism 
to  cite  the  words  of  Max  Miiller's  editorial 
preface  to  the  series  :  "  I  confess,"  he  says,  "  it 
has  been  for  many  years  a  problem  to  me,  aye, 
and  to  a  great  extent  is  so  still,  how  the  Sacred 
Books  of  the  East  should,  by  the  side  of  so 
much  that  is  fresh,  natural,  simple,  beautiful, 
and  true,  contain  so  much  that  is  not  only  un- 
meaning, artificial,  and  silly,  but  even  hideous 
and  repellent."  Elsewhere  he  says  of  the 
Brahmanas :  "  These  works  deserve  to  be 
studied  as  the  physician  studies  the  twaddle  of 
idiots  and  the  ravings  of  madmen.  They  will 
disclose  to  a  thoughtful  eye  the  ruins  of  faded 
grandeur;  the  memories  of  noble  aspirations. 
But  let  us  only  try  to  translate  these  works 
into  our  own  language,  and  we  shall  feel  aston- 
ished that  human  language  and  human  thought 
should  ever  have  been  used  for  such  purposes." 

It  would   indeed   be   difficult   to  name  any 


6  The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

books  which  more  seriously  try  the  patience  of 
the  reader.  We  may  doggedly  plough  through 
them  to  gain  some  insight  into  the  state  of 
mind  of  those  who  once  found  or  still  find  in 
them  their  highest  teaching,  but  no  one  who 
has  been  brought  up  in  Christian  ideas  and 
modern  thought  need  expect  to  find  in  them 
religious  stimulus  or  useful  knowledge.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  not  to  be  denied,  but  rather 
thankfully  acknowledged,  that  in  some  of  them 
ethical  teaching  of  a  very  high  and  pure  strain 
is  to  be  found.  Singularly  enough  this  is 
Confucian  especially  true  of  the  Confucian  and  Buddhist 
books,  which  can  only  by  courtesy  be  called 
sacred  books.  For  Confucius  was  a  professed 
agnostic.  "  To  give  one's  self  earnestly  to  the 
duties  due  to  man,  and  while  respecting  spirit- 
ual beings,  to  keep  aloof  from  them  "  —  this,  in 
his  own  words,  describes  his  normal  attitude. 
He  would  never  commit  himself  either  to  belief 
or  disbelief  of  the  spiritual  world.  He  merely 
declined  to  concern  himself  about  matters  which 
were  not  of  earth.  His  was  a  dry,  prosaic, 
practical  mind.  He  was  the  typical  Chinaman. 
But  if  the  Confucian  books  give  us  little  reli- 
gion, they  promulgate  a  singularly  pure  moral- 
ity. When  one  of  his  pupils,  weary  of  maxims 
and  rules,  said  to  Confucius,  "  Is  there  not  one 


and  Bud- 
dhist Ethics 


The  Bible  and   Other  Sacred  Books         7 

word  which  may  serve  as  a  rule  of  practice  for 
the  whole  of  life  ?  "  the  great  teacher  replied, 
"  Is  not  Reciprocity  such  a  word  ?  What  you 
don't  want  done  to  yourself  do  not  to  others." 
This  was  not  a  mere  accidental  hit  or  happy 
thought.  It  was  this  same  idea  which  per- 
vaded his  teaching,  and  which  he  again  formu- 
lated in  the  ever-memorable  expression,  as 
striking  as  any  ethical  truth  uttered  by  Western 
philosophy,  "Benevolence  is  Man."  This  doc- 
trine of  his  was  taken  up  by  a  contemporary 
philosopher,  Mih-Teih,  who  demonstrated  in  an 
elaborate  ethical  treatise  that  universal  mutual 
love  is  the  root  of  all  virtue  and  the  cure  of  all 
social  evil. 

In  the  Buddhist  scriptures  also  there  is  much  Buddhist 

,1  •      1     ,         1  •  r  ,  1  rm  eradication 

ethical  teaching  oi  great  value,  ihe  supe-  o/seif-wUi. 
riority  of  purity  and  love  to  all  ceremonial 
observances  has  never  been  more  ex]3licitly 
or  forcibly  proclaimed.  Never  has  the  eradi- 
cation of  self-will,  self-assertion,  self-pleasing, 
been  more  stringently  demanded.  "  Let  a  man 
overcome  evil  by  good  ;  let  him  overcome  the 
greedy  by  liberality,  the  liar  by  truth.  For 
hatred  does  not  cease  by  hatred  at  any  time  ; 
hatred  ceases  by  love."  Views  and  principles 
of  life  calculated  to  make  a  lasting  impression, 
a  code  of  morals  sufficient  to   guide   men  to 


Buddhism. 


8  The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Natm'e 

righteousness,  might  easil}'^  be  gathered  from 
the  Buddhist  scriptures.  Yet  Buddhism  has 
only  to  a  very  small  extent  cleansed  society. 

Failure  of  The  failure  of  Buddhism  is  probably  due  to 
its  agnostic  attitude  toward  God  and  its  dis- 
belief in  a  future  life.  It  is  a  system  of  de- 
spair, and  of  despair  because  of  its  materialism. 
Buddha  started  with  a  deep  impression  of  the 
emptiness,  sadness,  and  corruption  of  human 
life.  The  sole  escape  he  saw  was  to  detach 
one's  self  to  the  utmost  from  life.  He  was  the 
father  of  the  Stoic  and  the  Monk.  To  subdue 
all  desire  was  to  become  superior  to  life  ;  and 
perfected  triumph  was  to  enter  Nirvana,  a  state 
of  passionless,  apathetic,  unmoved  existence  or 
non-existence.  This  was  a  view  of  life  he 
could  not  possibly  have  taken  had  he  believed 
in  God,  and  his  system  fails  because  deeper 
even  than  the  thirst  for  righteousness  is  the 
thirst  for  God.  Without  God,  and  the  hope 
which  union  with  God  begets,  morality  appar- 
ently cannot  maintain  itself  among  men.  This 
is  the  lesson  which  Buddhism  writes  in  legible 
characters  across  human  history. 

Christianity  If  we  have  believed  that  the  chief  distinction 
between  the  Bible  and  other  sacred  books  lies 
in  the  contents  of  their  moral  teaching,  our 
faith  may  receive  a  shock  when  we  find  how 


more  than 
Ethics. 


The  Bible  and   Other  Sacred  Books         9 

much  of  what  is  true  and  high  those  books  con- 
tain. Hence  the  reluctance  of  some  to  admit 
the  facts.  Instead  of  rejoicing  to  learn  that 
more  of  our  fellow-men  than  we  had  supposed 
have  striven  after  purity  and  righteousness, 
we  are  actually  disappointed  and  disconcerted. 
Mr.  Kinglake,  in  his  stirring  history,  our  Eng- 
lish "  Iliad,"  has  admirably  shown  that  the  un- 
usual bloodshed  at  the  battle  of  Inkerman  was 
in  great  measure  due  to  the  false  issue  on  which 
for  part  of  the  day  the  battle  was  fought.  The 
Sand  Bag  Battery,  for  the  possession  of  which 
hundreds  of  brave  men  fell,  was  utterly  worth- 
less when  won,  and  was  not  the  key  of  the 
position  ;  and  yet  it  was  round  it  that  hour 
after  hour  the  main  tide  of  battle  was  drawn. 
Similarly  it  is  only  through  a  complete,  and  in 
many  cases  disastrous  misapprehension  that  the 
contest  between  the  Bible  and  rival  books  can  be 
drawn  to  a  position  of  second-rate  importance. 
That  men  should  be  able  to  analyze  their  own 
moral  nature  seems  as  likely  as  that  they  should 
be  able  to  anatomize  the  human  body  and  dis- 
cover the  purpose  and  uses  and  treatment  of  its 
organs.  At  all  events,  it  is  a  mistake  to  treat 
Christianity  or  the  Bible  as  if  it  were  mainly  a 
system  of  morals,  and  to  lay  the  stress  of  the 
argument  in  its  favor  on  its  distinct  superiority 


10        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

in  moral  teaching  ;  because,  even  though  this 
position  be  gained,  we  do  not  thereby  command 
the  whole  field.  What  we  seek  in  our  religion, 
and  what  those  admirable  moral  teachers  wholly 
fail  to  give  us,  is  the  knowledge  of  God  and  the 
establishment  of  right  relations  with  Him.  It 
is  this  which  gives  us  at  once  a  moral  criterion 
and  a  moral  dynamic.  And  it  is  here  the  supe- 
riority of  the  Bible  appears.  We  find  there  the 
proclamation  of  God's  Fatherhood  and  the  res- 
toration of  right  relations  at  once  with  Him  and 
with  our  fellow-men. 
Non-Chris-        Passing  from  the  merely  ethical  sacred  books 

tian  sacred      ,      .■,  ^  •   ^  e  i  t  i     ,^  ■ 

books  not       ^^  those  which  profess  to  accomplish  this  very 

enlighten-      thing  and  restore  right  relations  with  God,  it 

mg.  '^  ° 

must  be  owned  that  they  are  intensely  dis- 
appointing. Without  entering  into  detail,  it 
may  be  said  generally  that  these  books  had 
the  misfortune  to  be  written  while  religion 
was  in  its  legal  and  ceremonial  stage.  The 
kind  of  religion  which  they  represent  is  rudi- 
mentary and  has  been  outgrown  by  those  races 
which,  mainly  through  the  enlightening  power 
of  Christianity,  have  come  to  believe  only  in 
a  religion  which  is  inward  and  spiritual.  It  is 
this  chiefly  which  makes  these  books  dead  to 
us  and  the  heaviest  of  reading.  Ceremonial, 
often  of  a  revolting  kind ;  magic,  the  efficacy 


The  Bible  and   Other  Sacred  Books       11 

of  repeating  certain  forms  of  words,  meet  us 
at  every  step. 

Better  things  might  have  been  expected  of  Tiie  Quran. 
the  Quran,  written  as  it  was  nearly  six  centu- 
ries after  the  New  Testament.  But  the  Quran 
is  a  dull  book.  Unlike  the  other  sacred  books, 
it  is  all  the  work  of  one  man,  and  of  a  man 
whose  genius  for  religion  was  concentrated  on 
one  point.  Like  our  own  Bishop  Butler,  he  be- 
lieved that  the  whole  of  religion  was  comprised 
in  submission  to  the  Divine  will,  and  that  which 
gave  him  importance  was  the  extraordinary 
energy  with  which  he  propagated  the  idea  of 
one  sovereign  Ruler.  With  rare  exception  the 
Suras  of  the  Quran  are  characterized  rather  by 
force  than  by  felicity  of  expression  :  "  Verily, 
those  who  disbelieve  in  our  signs  we  will  broil 
them  with  fire  ;  whenever  their  skins  are  well 
done,  then  we  will  change  them  for  other  skins, 
that  they  may  taste  the  torment."  In  the  later 
deliverances  it  is  painfully  apparent  that  Mu- 
hammad invented  supposed  revelations  to  suit 
his  own  convenience  and  minister  to  his  own 
pleasures. 

But   its  radical  or   capital  condemnation  is  Radical 
that  it  propounds  an  intensely  legal  religion.   ^Quran.  '^ 
It  tells  men  their  duty  and  enforces  it  by  threats 
and  promises.     It  finds  a  sphere  among  primi- 


12        The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Nature  of 
the  Bible. 


Is  a  written 
canon  legiti- 
mate in 
Christian- 
ity? 


tive  peoples  and  is  accepted  as  God's  word  by 
over  a  hundred  millions  of  our  race.  But  like 
police  regulations,  it  is  effective  only  within  a 
certain  circumference,  and  commits  the  radical 
error  of  proposing  to  rectify  the  conduct,  not 
the  character.  That  religion  which  makes  no 
provision  for  transforming  ourselves  and  impart- 
ing to  us  a  spirit  which  will  express  itself  in 
righteousness  is  not  the  ultimate  religion.  In 
a  word,  Muhammadanism  is  two  thousand  years 
out  of  date.  Whatever  help  it  may  furnish  to 
men  at  a  certain  stage  of  civilization,  it  can  fur- 
nish none  to  any  one  who  understands  Chris- 
tianity. 

The  essential  differences  between  the  Bible 
and  other  sacred  books  will  best  be  understood 
by  a  consideration  of  the  actual  nature  of  the 
former ;  and  to  this  we  now  proceed. 

But  no  sooner  do  we  set  our  Bible  before  us 
as  an  object  of  inquiry  than  certain  preliminary 
questions  arise.  These  cannot  be  fully  ex- 
amined now,  but  one  or  two  of  them  may  at 
any  rate  be  alluded  to.  First,  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned whether  a  sacred  and  authoritative 
written  canon  is  a  legitimate  or  necessary  ac- 
companiment of  a  purely  spiritual  religion.  A 
written  covenant  was  of  the  very  essence  of  the 
Old  Testament  dispensation,  but  no  provision 


The  Bible  and   Other  Sacred  Books       13 

was  expressly  made  by  the  mediator  of  the  New 
Covenant  for  engrossing  its  terms  in  a  docu- 
ment. It  may  be  alleged  that  it  is  incongruous 
that  a  spiritual  religion  should  be  subjected 
to  an  outward  written  rule.  The  Society  of 
Friends  maintains  that  because  the  Scriptures 
"are  only  a  declaration  of  the  Fountain,  and 
not  the  Fountain  itself,  therefore  they  are  not 
to  be  esteemed  the  principal  ground  of  all  truth 
and  knowledge,  nor  yet  the  adequate  primary 
rule  of  faith  and  manners."  That  is  to  say,  the 
Scriptures  are  a  secondary  rule,  subordinate  to 
the  Spirit.  The  Church  of  Rome,  too,  assigns 
a  first  place  to  the  Spirit  speaking  through 
Christ's  Vicar  on  earth.  Both  the  Society  of 
Friends  and  the  Church  of  Rome  respond  to 
the  claim  made  by  the  Christian  heart  that  the 
Church  and  the  individual  should  enjoy  the 
guidance  of  the  living  Lord  and  should  not  be 
referred  back  to  the  first  century  for  all  its 
light  and  inspiration.  And  unquestionably  if 
the  Bible  tends  to  stifle  this  cry  for  a  living  God 
and  prompts  us  to  lean  more  on  the  written 
letter  than  on  the  present  and  active  personality 
of  Christ's  Spirit,  it  does  harm. 

But  there  is  really  no  incompatibility  between  No  incom- 
the  written  word  and  the  living  Spirit.     The  ^tween^mbie 
figure  of  Christ  is  once  for  all  presented  in  the  ^^^  Spirit. 


14        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

Gospels,  and  in  the  Epistles  the  relation  of 
the  soul  to  Him  is  once  for  all  in  essentials 
declared ;  and  these  are  the  means  used  by  the 
Sj)irit  for  bringing  men  into  true  fellowship 
with  Christ  and  filling  them  with  the  light 
which  accompanies  faithful  knowledge  of  Him. 
The  living  Spirit  of  God  is  ever  the  Spirit  of 
Christ. 
Origvi  of  Again,  we  no  sooner  ask  ourselves  what  the 

Bible  is,  than  we  are  led  to  consider  its  origin. 
How  did  those  various  books  come  to  be  written  ? 
Putting  ourselves  back  into  the  days  when  as 
yet  there  was  no  written  record  of  the  past, 
with  what  object  in  view  did  the  earliest  writer 
commence  his  work?  Probably  some  early 
prophet,  Amos  or  Hosea,  so  stirred  the  hearts 
of  the  people  that  his  words  were  transcribed, 
though  with  little  idea  that  they  were  to  ring 
in  the  ears  of  men  for  nearly  three  thousand 
years.  Even  before  the  eighth  century  there 
may  have  been  records  of  important  events  and 
legendary  accounts  of  remote  transactions.  The 
building  up  of  the  books  which  form  our  Scrip- 
tures, their  individual  histories  and  separate 
fortunes,  and  their  eventual  collection  to  form 
our  Canon,  form  an  extremely  interesting  sub- 
ject of  investigation,  but  to  pursue  it  here  would 
take  us  too  far  aside  from  the  particular  line 


The  Bible  and  Other  Sacred  Books       15 

we  desire  to  follow ;  and,  besides,  full  informa- 
tion on  these  points  is  easily  accessible. 

Turning,  then,  to  the  Bible  itself,  we  are  first  The  %oord 
of  all  struck  with  the  fact  that  it  is  not  one 
book  but  many  —  thirty -nine  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, twenty-seven  in  the  New.  The  very 
name  "  Bible "  indicates  this  plurality,  because 
it  represents  the  Bihlia  of  ecclesiastical  Latin. 
This  was  the  transliteration  of  the  Greek  to, 
^i^Xia,  but  it  was  used  not  only  as  a  plural 
(^BiMia,  -orum^  but  as  a  singular  {Biblia,  -ae'). 
Hence  it  has  passed  into  English  as  a  singular,^ 
which  only  exhibits  one  side  of  the  Bible.  The 
Greek  word  ro  /Sl^Xlov  or  ?;  /3i73Xo9,  a  book,  was 
derived  from  the  material  on  which  it  was  writ- 
ten after  the  Clay  period  had  passed  away.  This 
material  was  the  Byblus  or  Papyrus,  an  Egyp- 
tian reed  out  of  which  the  first  paper  was  made. 
At  an  early  date,  the  expression  at  ^i/3\ol  or 
TO,  ^LJSkCa  was  used  by  the  Jews  to  denote  the 
books  by  preeminence,  the  sacred  writings.  At 
first,  some  explanatory  designation  was  added, 
as  in  1  Mace.  xii.  9,  "the  holy  books"  (ra 
^c^Xia  ra  ayia').  In  Dan.  ix.  2,  we  find  iv  Tat<; 
/St/3\oi9  used  of   Jeremiah's  writings ;    and  in 

1  Nestle  has  shown  (in  Exp.  Times,  Sept.,  1904)  that 
Biblia  first  appears  in  English  catalogues  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  Becker's  earlier  example  being  wrongly  dated. 


16        The  Bible :  Its   Origin  and  Nature 

the  Prologue  to  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach  there 
occurs  the  classification,  "  the  law,  the  prophets, 
and  the  other  hereditary  books "  (tq)v  dXXcov 
irarpiwv  ^l^Xlcov).  But  the  first  clear  use  of 
ra  /ScfiXia  without  qualifying  addition  to  de- 
note the  Bible  or  the  Scriptures  is  found  in 
the  Pseudo-Clement  (XIV.  2).  Subsequently 
the  usage  became  common,  and  how  clearly  the 
Patristic  and  Media3val  Avriters  kept  in  view  the 
plurality  of  books  forming  our  Bible,  may  be 
gathered  from  their  commonly  speaking  of  it 
as  the  "  Divine  Library  "  (Bibliotheca  Divina). 
What  bond  What,  then,  is  the  bond  which  ties  these 
books?  books  together?     What  is  the  element  which 

forms  the  common  distinction,  at  once  separat- 
ing them  from  other  books  and  uniting  them  in 
one  whole?  It  is  obvious  that  alongside  of  the 
vast  differences  existing  between  these  books  in 
date,  authorship,  form,  and  style,  there  must 
be  some  common  element  powerful  enough  to 
counterbalance  and  overcome  these  differences 
and  bring  the  books  together  in  one  solid  body. 
Within  this  collection  we  find  traditions  dimly 
emerging  out  of  the  mists  that  obscure  the  ear- 
liest prehistoric  times ;  we  find  histories  based 
on  documents  which  would  seem  to  have  long 
since  passed  out  of  existence,  genealogies  which 
aim  at  connecting  later  generations  with  the 


The  Bible  and   Other  Sacred  Books       17 

progenitors  of  the  race,  biographies  which  im- 
mortalize their  heroes  in  a  form  more  monu- 
mental than  brass ;  songs  of  victory  and  of  love, 
hymns  wrung  from  souls  subjected  to  every 
species  of  human  distress  and  agony,  and  psalms 
which  serve  for  every  age  to  utter  its  praise, 
and  its  penitence,  and  its  thirst  for  the  living 
God ;  the  sayings  of  the  worldly  wise,  and  the 
inspired  warnings,  denunciations,  and  encour- 
agements of  the  prophets  of  God;  we  have 
drama  and  essay,  the  simple  gospel  story,  the 
earliest  annals  of  the  Church,  and  the  letters  of 
friendship  and  counsel  that  passed  from  the 
founders  to  their  churches.  Had  the  purpose 
been  to  present  to  our  view  the  various  literary 
forms  employed  by  the  Hebrews  during  the 
whole  of  their  history  in  their  own  land,  a  more 
miscellaneous  collection  could  not  have  been 
brought  together.  If  you  bound  into  one  vol- 
ume Knox's  "  History  of  the  Reformation,"  the 
"  Olney  Hymns,"  Bunyan's  "  Pilgrim's  Prog- 
ress," Savonarola's  "  Sermons,"  the  "  Sayings  of 
Samuel  Johnson,"  Cowper's  "  Letters,"  "  Ham- 
let," you  would  not  have  a  volume  more  mis- 
cellaneous in  form  than  the  Bible. 

Yet  the  unity  of  the  whole  is  unmistakable.   Tiie  unity 
Individuals  may  feel  that  this  or  that  part  is  ^^i^_ 
incongruous  with  the  rest ;  some  may  object  to 


18        The  Bible :  Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Not  the  en- 
tire litera- 
ture of  a 
race. 


the  presence  of  the  Song  of  Songs,  some  would 
eject  Ecclesiastes  or  Second  Peter  ;  but  on  the 
whole  the  unity  of  Scripture  has  been  universally- 
recognized.  Moreover,  this  unity  is  obviously 
not  designed  and  artificial;  it  is  not  even  con- 
scious ;  the  writers  of  the  several  parts  had  no 
intention  to  contribute  nor  any  idea  that  they 
were  contributing  to  one  whole.  In  uttering 
their  private  confessions  and  their  individual 
longings  the  authors  of  the  Psalms  had  no  idea 
they  were  contributing  to  an  immortal  liturgy. 
When  the  worn-out  artist  relieved  his  feelings 
by  penning  Ecclesiastes  it  was  scarcely  a  place 
in  the  Canon  he  expected;  and  when  Paul 
seized  the  opportunity  of  a  casual  post  to  Asia 
Minor  and  sent  a  letter  to  some  of  his  churches 
there,  he  certainly  did  not  anticipate  that,  two 
thousand  years  after,  his  expressions  would  be 
reckoned  infallible.  And  yet  when  these  vari- 
ous writings  are  drawn  together,  their  unity 
becomes  apj)arent.     In  what  does  it  consist? 

At  first  sight  one  is  apt  to  fancy  that  the 
unity  of  Scripture  arises  from  the  circumstance 
that  in  the  Bible  we  have  the  entire  extant 
literature  of  a  race.  But  this  at  once  appears  to 
be  a  superficial  view.  Even  the  earliest  writers 
in  the  collection  depend  on  documents  which 
were  not  received  into  the  sacred  archives;  and 


The  Bible  and   Other  Sacred  Books       19 

the  later  writers  had  as  their  contemporaries 
or  successors  many  authors  whose  works  are 
partly  lost  and  partly  extant,  but  which  have 
been  carefully  excluded  from  the  Canon.  The 
works  of  Philo  were  numerous,  were  devoted 
to  sacred  subjects,  were  widely  read,  were  rich 
in  devout  suggestions  and  of  great  influence; 
yet  no  one  seems  to  have  dreamt  of  admitting 
them  into  the  Canon.  In  like  manner  the  claims 
of  Josephus  were  entirely  neglected.  In  regard 
to  the  New  Testament  the  same  holds  good. 
Our  Bible,  then,  was  not  formed  on  the  com- 
modious principle  of  embracing  all  Hebrew 
literature.  The  Canon  is  not  a  carpet-bag  ''  ^ 
canon.  It  is  an  interesting  fact,  a  fact  with  its 
own  significance,  that  all  the  writers  represented 
in  our  Bible  were,  with  one  exception,  Jews. 
But  this  is  not  the  reason  why  their  writings, 
when  brought  together,  are  found  to  form  one 
whole. 

Again,  it  might  be  thought  that  the  element  N'ot  their  \ 
,  .   ,      ,,  ,,.  .  1    godly  tone.   ) 

which  these  writings  possess  in  common  and 

which  brings  them  together  is  the  devout  or 
godly  tone  in  which  they  are  written.  Dissim- 
ilar in  the  subjects  treated,  the  point  of  view 
and  the  tone  are  the  same.  Whether  we  read  a 
hymn,  or  a  narrative  of  the  exploits  of  some  old 
hero,  or  the  cynical  observations  of  one  who 


20        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

from  an  actor  in  life  has  become  a  spectator  and 
critic,  or  predictions  of  political  revolutions,  or 
the  annals  of  the  early  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah, 
we  find  in  all  the  same  reference  to  God,  the 
same  loyalty  to  Him,  the  same  confident  expec- 
tation that  He  will  one  day  judge  the  world  in 
righteousness.  However  various  the  subjects, 
however  remote  the  dates,  however  differently 
conditioned  the  authorship,  there  is  everywhere 
the  same  faith  breathing  through  the  writing. 
The  story  of  creation  is  told  not  in  a  scientific, 
but  in  a  religious  interest ;  the  traditions  of  the 
patriarchs  are  recorded  not  for  the  glorification 
of  the  Jewish  people,  but  for  the  glory  of  God ; 
the  annals  of  the  Kingdom  are  written  not  as 
secular  history,  but  as  an  illustration  of  the  care 
with  which  Jehovah  has  trained  His  people ; 
the  prophets  appear  on  the  field  of  politics  not 
as  ambitious  demagogues  or  fanatical  alarmists, 
but  as  the  voice  of  God  disclosing  that  at  each 
crisis  of  history  there  is  a  Divine  Agent  as 
well  as  human  forces.  These  books  are  sacred 
books. 
Though  this  It  is  interesting  to  find  how  universally  it  is 
discernible.  a,cknowledged  that  our  Bible  is  characterized 
by  a  consciousness  of  God  and  a  consequent 
elevation  of  tone.  Testimonies  might  be  pro- 
duced from  Carlyle,  Emerson,  Ruskin,  Ewald, 


The  Bible  and  Other  Sacred  Books       21 

Coleridge,  Sir  Walter  Scott,  and  many  other 
unbiassed  sources.  But  one  must  suffice.  No 
writer  of  the  last  century  was  more  unbridled 
in  thought  or  speech  than  Heinrich  Heine.  In 
the  midst  of  one  of  his  wildest  and  most 
humorous  outbreaks  he  suddenly  says :  "  I 
owe  my  conversion  simply  to  the  reading  of 
a  book.  A  book  ?  Yes,  an  old,  homely -look- 
ing book,  modest  as  nature  and  as  natural  as 
it;  a  book  that  has  a  workaday  and  unassum- 
ing look,  like  the  sun  that  warms  us,  like  the 
bread  that  nourishes  us,  a  book  that  seems  to 
us  as  familiar  and  as  full  of  kindly  blessing  as 
the  old  grandmother  who  reads  daily  in  it  with 
dear  trembling  lips  and  with  spectacles  on  her 
nose.  And  the  book  is  called  quite  shortly  — 
the  Book  —  the  Bible."  And  it  is  necessary  to 
keep  in  view  this  self-evidencing  character  of 
the  Bible  —  the  something  about  it  which  awes 
and  sobers  the  right-minded  reader  and  makes 
it  independent  of  criticism  and  sets  it  in  a  place 
apart.  If  it  is  true,  as  so  many  writers  of 
various  dispositions  unexpectedly  testify,  that 
the  Bible  has  everywhere  nourished  the  best 
life  that  has  been  known  on  earth ;  if  it  be  true 
that  it  has  in  point  of  fact  been  the  spring  of 
the  highest  aspirations  men  have  cherished  and 
the  ripest  character  they  have  attained;   if  in 


22        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

every  generation  it  has  served  for  the  healing 
of  the  nations,  lying  at  the  root  of  all  progress, 
and  insisting  upon  a  finer  and  purer  civiliza- 
tion ;  if,  wherever  it  comes,  it  brings  with  it 
courage  and  solace  in  danger  and  in  death ;  if 
it  has  brought  heaven  nearer  to  earth,  and  if  it 
reveals  God  as  our  Father  and  enables  the 
hopeless  and  broken  and  abandoned  to  hope 
and  to  believe,  —  then  certainly  there  must  be 
that  in  the  book  itself  irrespective  of  our 
knowledge  of  its  origin  which  proclaims  it  to 
be  God's  message  to  men. 
Xot  all  God's  But  cvcn  this  characteristic,  important  as  it 
Scripture.  i^,  can  scarcely  be  that  unifying  element  which 
brings  these  books  together  in  separation  from 
all  other  literature.  For  many  books  might  be 
named  which  also  possess  this  characteristic  and 
which  have,  perhaps,  more  directly  influenced 
men  for  good  than  the  Scriptures  themselves. 
^  God  speaks  to  us  through  other  channels  than 
Scripture.  In  nature,  in  history,  in  providence, 
in  conscience.  His  voice  is  heard.  Day  by  day 
He  speaks  to  us  through  good  men,  through 
good  books,  most  loudly  and  explicitly  through 
our  own  experience.  To  many  their  first  clear 
sense  of  God's  presence  has  come  through  the 
example  or  remonstrance  of  a  friend  or  through 
some  awakeninsf   incident   in   life.     Far  more 


The  Bible  arid   Other  Sacred  Books       23 

legibly  and  more  convincingly  than  in  Scrip- 
ture do  we  read  in  our  own  experience  some  of 
the  profoundest  and  most  salutary  lessons  God 
has  taught  us.  Not  all  God's  word  is  Scrip- 
ture. The  spirit  of  God  is  not  imprisoned  in 
the  Bible  nor  limited  by  it.  As  already  noticed, 
Romanists  and  the  Friends  are  right  in  reso- 
lutely maintaining  that  the  Spirit  is  ever  alive  - 
and  active  in  the  imparting  of  truth. 

Yet  among  all  words  of  God  Scripture  holds  But  Scrip-    \^ 
a    distinctive,    an    authoritative,    a    normative  j^ordo/** 
position  of  its  own.     What,  then,  is  the  differ-   <^'^'^- 
ence  ?     What  is  that  which  gives  meaning  to 
our  words  when  we  call  the  Bible  distinctively 
the  word  of  God?     While  we  acknowledge  that 
the  same  Spirit  speaks  to  us  through  the  words 
and  writings  and  lives  of  all  good  men,  why  do 
we  set  Scripture  apart  from  them  all  and  assign 
to  it  a  place  of  supremacy  ?     We  do  so  because 
those  books  which  form  our  Bible  are  all  iii  direct 
connection  with  God's  historical  revelation  which 

culminated   m   Christ.     It  is  this  alone  which    

gives  to  the  Bible  its  normative  character  and 
separates  it  from  all  other  literature.  It  is  this 
alone  which  forms  the  essential  bond,  the  uni- 
fying element,  in  the  books  which  form  our 
Canon.  In  some  of  its  parts,  in  the  prophetic 
books,  in  the  recorded  utterances  of  our  Lord, 


24       The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

and  so  forth,  the  Bible  is  the  very  organ  of 
God's  revelation  of  Himself  in  that  objective, 
historical  line  that  was  consummated  in  Christ ; 
and  in  all  its  parts,  if  it  is  not  the  immediate 
organ  of  that  revelation,  then  it  is  its  record  or 
its  result  and  product.  It  is  from  Christ  the 
central  light  that  illuminating  rays  are  shed 
through  the  whole  of  Scripture;  He  is  the  cen- 
tral sun  who  holds  together  all  its  various 
parts.  It  is  in  the  Bible  we  find  that  word  of 
God  which  it  concerns  all  men  to  hear.  It  is 
in  it  that  we  listen  to  what  God  has  to  say  to 
His  children  on  earth  as  a  society  or  Church. 
Here  we  have  the  public,  common  revelation, 
from  which  all  Christian  institutions  and  all 
Christian  hopes  spring  and  in  which  all  Chris- 
tians can  meet. 
Bible  con-  This  is  a  point  which  perhaps  should  be  em- 

tains  the  i       •       i  -j.  j.      i.  rj.  •         i    i 

consummate  phasized,  as  it  sccms  to  be  so  oiten  missed  by 

revelation      ^lie  great  writers  who  influence  our  thous^hts. 
0/  God.  ^  ^ 

Goethe,  e.g.,  in  writing  to  Lavater  says :  "  You 

find  nothing  more  beautiful  than  the  Gospel ;  I 
find  a  thousand  pages  written  by  both  ancient 
and  modern  men,  graciously  endowed  of  God, 
as  beautiful  and  useful  and  necessary  to  man- 
kind." Mazzini,  too,  exclaims :  "No!  Eternal 
God  !  Thy  word  is  not  all  fulfilled  ;  Thy 
thought,   the    thought    of   the   world,    not   all 


The  Bible  and   Other  Sacred  Books       25 

revealed.  That  thought  creates  still,  and  will 
continue  to  create  for  ages  incalculable  by- 
man."  And  most  impressive  of  all  are  Lowell's 
words :  — 

"  Slowly  the  Bible  of  the  race  is  writ 
And  not  on  paper  leaves  nor  leaves  of  stone ; 
Each  age,  each  kindred,  adds  to  it, 
Texts  of  despair  or  hope,  of  joy  or  moan. 
While  swings  the  sea,  while  mists  the  mountains 

shroud. 
While  thunder's  surges  burst  on  cliffs  of  cloud, 
Still  at  the  prophets'  feet  the  nations  sit." 

The  omitted  idea  in  all  these  and  a  hundred 
similar  utterances  is  that,  though  not  closed, 
God's  revelation  is  consummated  in  Christ; 
and  that  as  all  that  went  before  prepared  for 
that  revelation,  so  all  that  follows  illustrates, 
unfolds,  and  applies  it,  and  must  be  judged  by- 
it.  It  is  absurd  to  take  the  Bible  piecemeal 
and  declare  that  out  of  Shakespeare  you  can 
bring  wisdom  as  profound  and  as  helpful  as 
anything  in  Proverbs,  or  that  there  are  pas- 
sages in  Thomas  a  Kempis  or  Augustine  or 
Bunyan  which  are  as  truly  from  God  as  any- 
thing in  the  Song  of  Songs.  The  value  of  the 
Bible  results  from  its  connection  with  Christ. 
He  is  the  supreme,  ultimate  revelation  of  God, 
and  the  Bible,  being  the  amber  in  which  He  is 
preserved  for  man,  is  as  inviolable  and  unique 


26       The  Bible  :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

as  He.  On  all  hands  and  in  all  ages  there  has 
been  knowledge  of  God.  He  has  never  and  no- 
where left  Himself  without  a  witness  :  through 
nature  and  through  conscience  and  through  the 
experience  of  the  misery  that  follows  sin  God 
has  spoken  to  men  in  general  and  to  the  indi- 
vidual in  a  language  that  many  have  been  un- 
able to  misunderstand.  But  all  such  revelation 
is  demonstrably  incomplete  without  Christ.  It 
is  only  in  that  crowning  revelation  that  all  be- 
comes clear  and  that  God  is  fully  known.  It 
cannot  be  too  often  repeated  that  the  element 
in  the  Bible  which  differentiates  it  is  not  the 
supreme  and  unrivalled  excellence  of  all  its 
constituent  parts,  nor  that  in  it  alone  God 
speaks  to  man,  but  that  it  is  the  record  of  His 
supreme  manifestation  in  Jesus  Christ. 
This  the  It  is  here,  then,  that  we  find  the  key  to  the 

^lemenf  Secret  of  the  unifying  element  which  has 
brought  these  books  together  and  which  justi- 
fies their  elevation  to  the  rank  of  a  Canon  of 
Scripture.  And  this  key,  as  was  to  be  ex- 
pected, is  not  any  accident  of  language,  nor 
any  quality  which  these  writings  possess  in 
common  with  many  others,  but  the  essential 
characteristic,  the  very  meaning  and  substance 
of  the  books.  Prior  to  Scripture,  and  under- 
lying it,  is  God's  revelation  of  Himself  in  and 


The  Bible  and   Other  Sacred  Books       27 

to  Israel.  The  Bible  gives  us  an  inspired 
utterance,  record,  and  interpretation  of  this 
revelation.  It  is  primarily  the  record  of  God's 
manifestation  of  Himself  in  history  as  winning 
and  ruling  men.  Its  unity  is  to  be  found 
in  the  unity  of  God's  purpose.  Or  it  may 
be  said  that  its  unity  is  to  be  found  in  its 
centre,  Jesus  Christ.  In  Him  is  the  supreme 
manifestation  of  God;  He  is  the  culminating, 
unique  revelation  of  God,  and  in  Him  the 
Bible  finds  its  unity.  It  is  either  the  record 
of  His  life,  the  transcript  of  His  revelation  and 
its  interpretation,  or  it  is  the  promise  and 
preparation  for  His  life,  illustrating  how  greatly 
men  needed  this  revelation,  and  tracing  the 
steps  by  which  at  last  the  crowning  manifesta- 
tion became  possible.  Each  part  of  Scripture 
receives  its  place  and  function  by  its  relation 
to  Jesus  Christ. 


II 

THE  CANON  OF  SCRIPTURE 


II 

THE   CANON   OF  SCRIPTURE 

The  readiest  way  to  reach  an  intelligible  and 
defensible  position  regarding  the  Canon  is  to 
trace  the  course  of  reasoning  into  which  Luther 
was  driven  by  his  controversy  with  Rome. 

If  you  ask  a  Romanist  why  he  accepts  cer-  Romanist 

,.•11  -111  rj.i-i.1      cincl  Protes- 

tam  books  as  canonical,  he  lias  a  periectiy  mtei-  ^^^^  ^^^ 
ligible  answer  ready.  He  accepts  these  books  Canon. 
because  the  Church  bids  him  do  so.  The 
Church  has  determined  what  books  are  canon- 
ical, and  he  accepts  the  decision  of  the  Church. 
If  you  ask  a  Protestant  why  he  believes  that 
just  these  books  bound  up  together  in  his  Bible 
are  canonical,  and  neither  more  nor  fewer,  I 
fear  that  ninety-nine  Protestants  out  of  a  hun- 
dred could  give  you  no  answer  that  would  sat- 
isfy a  reasonable  man.  The  Protestant  scorns 
the  Romanist  because  he  relies  on  the  authority 
of  the  Church,  but  he  cannot  tell  you  on  what 
authority  he  himself  relies.  The  Protestant 
watchword  is,  "  The  Bible,  the  whole  Bible, 
31 


32       The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

and  nothing  but  the  Bible,"  but  how  many 
Protestants  are  there  who  could  make  it  quite 
clear  that  within  the  boards  of  their  Bible  they 
have  the  whole  Bible  and  nothing  but  the  Bible? 
If  you  asked  them  to  show  you  that  no  canoni- 
cal writing  has  been  omitted,  and  that  no  un- 
canonical  writing  has  been  received,  how  will 
they  proceed  to  do  so?  If  you  ask  the  average 
Protestant  to  say  why  he  receives  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter,  which  a  large  part  of  the 
early  Church  declined  to  receive,  or  why  he 
accepts  the  Epistle  of  James,  regarding  which 
Luther  himself  was  more  than  doubtful,  —  what 
can  he  say  but  that  the  Church  to  which  he 
belongs  receives  them?  In  other  words,  what 
is  the  difference  between  the  Protestant  and 
the  Romanist  on  this  cardinal  point  of  canon- 
icity?  Do  not  Protestants  and  Romanists  alike 
accept  their  canonical  books  at  the  hands  of 
the  Church? 

Council  of  Let  US  see  if  any  light  can  be  shed  on  this 
matter.  And  first  of  all,  it  may  be  well  briefly 
to  indicate  the  position  which  the  Church  of 
Rome  assumed  regarding  the  Canon  at  the 
Reformation.  Before  the  Council  of  Trent 
there  were  laid  four  propositions  which  summed 
up  the  heresy  of  Luther.  Two  of  these  con- 
cerned the  Bible ;  the  first  being  that  Scripture 


Trent's 
decree. 


The   Canon  of  Scripture  33 

was  the  sole  and  complete  source  of  doctrine ; 
the  second,  that  the  Hebrew  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  acknowledged  books  of  the 
New  Testament  should  alone  be  admitted  as 
authoritative.  In  April,  1546,  the  Council, 
after  considerable  debate,  issued  the  following 
decree  :  "  The  Holy,  CEcumenical,  and  general 
Synod  of  Trent  legitimately  convened  in  the  • 
Holy  Ghost  .  .  .  and  having  always  as  its 
aim  to  remove  errors  and  preserve  the  very 
purity  of  the  Gospel,  which  was  promised  be- 
fore by  the  Prophets,  and  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, and  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  first  proclaimed  with  His  own 
lips,  and  then  commanded  to  be  preached  by 
His  Apostles  to  every  creature  as  the  fountain 
of  all  verity  and  saving  truth,  as  well  as  of 
instruction  in  conduct,  and  [this  Council]  per- 
ceiving that  this  truth  and  discipline  are  con- 
tained in  written  books,  and  in  unwritten 
traditions  received  by  the  Apostles  from  the 
mouth  of  Christ  Himself,  or  dictated  to  the 
Apostles  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  handed  down 
as  if  from  hand  to  hand  even  to  us  ;  following 
the  example  of  the  Orthodox  Fathers  [this 
Council]  receives  and  venerates  with  an  equal 
piety  and  reverence  all  the  books  as  well  of 
the  Old  as  of  the  New  Testament;    one  God 


34       The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


This  decree 
a  new  de- 
parture. 


being  the  Author  of  both,  together  with  the 
Traditions  pertaining  both  to  faith  and  to 
morals,  as  proceeding  from  the  mouth  of 
Christ,  or  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
preserved  in  the  Church  Catholic  by  continu- 
ous succession.  And  that  no  doubt  may  arise 
as  to  what  these  books  are  which  the  Synod 
thus  receives,  it  has  seemed  good  to  append 
to  this  decree  a  Catalogue  of  the  Sacred 
Books."  Then  follows  a  list  which  includes 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Apoc- 
rypha, and  all  the  books  now  composing  our 
New  Testament.  And  the  Decree  concludes 
with  an  anathema  on  all  who  shall  not  receive 
as  sacred  and  canonical  these  books  and  all 
their  parts,  "as  they  have  been  wont  to  be 
read  in  the  Church,  and  as  they  are  contained 
in  the  old  vulgate  Latin  edition." 

Councils  had  previously  taken  the  subject 
of  the  Canon  into  consideration,  and  had  pro- 
nounced upon  it;  but  these  councils  were  not 
oecumenical  and  their  decisions  were  not  re- 
garded. In  fact,  the  very  circumstance  that 
the  Council  of  Trent  found  itself  compelled  to 
give  a  definite  decision  on  the  subject  sug- 
gests that  there  was  no  previous  decree  to  which 
they  could  appeal.  Hitherto  usage  had  deter- 
mined the  Canon.      It  was  the  universal  use 


The   Canon  of  Scripture  35 

of  Jerome's  Latin  version,  the  Vnlgate,  which 
practically  led  the  entire  Western  Church  to 
adopt  the  same  canon.  But  in  the  original 
admission  of  books  into  the  Vulgate,  Jerome 
did  not  carry  through  any  scientific  principle. 
He  allowed  himself  to  be  guided  by  the  gener- 
ally received  opinion,  preferring  the  opinion  of 
the  primitive  Church  to  that  of  a  later  date, 
and  following  the  majority  in  preference  to  the 
minority. 

Previous  to  the  Reformation,  then,  the  ques-   Camn 
tion  of    the    Canon  was    in   abeyance.      The  alfenlied 
Church  rested  in  the  practical  determination  of  ^v  t^^  ^w'^- 

gate. 

the  question  by  Jerome's  issue  of  a  Latin  Bible 
which  was  everywhere  received  and  used.  And 
it  was  determined  by  Jerome  with  a  regard  to 
prevalent  opinion  in  the  Church,  and  not  by  the 
thorough  application  of  a  principle  or  test  of 
canonicity,  although  no  doubt  underlying  the 
procedure,  both  of  the  Church  and  of  Jerome, 
there  was  the  principle  that  those  writings  were 
canonical  which  proceeded  from  the  Apostolic 
Circle.  This  principle  had  been  explicitly 
enounced  by  Tertullian,  and  it  was  only  the 
difficulty  of  making  good  the  claims  of  certain 
writings  to  be  of  Apostolic  origin  that  pre- 
vented them  from  being  universally  accepted  as 
canonical. 


36       The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

This  had  This  practical  solution  of  the  difficulty  worked 

jiced.  very  well  as  long  as  the  Bible  was  merely  used 

as  a  book  of  edification,  or  to  eke  out  a  Church 
service.  But  when  Luther  and  his  followers 
proposed  to  make  it  the  one  law  of  everything 
religious  and  ecclesiastical ;  when  they  pro- 
posed on  its  authority  to  repudiate  and  condemn 
what  was  imposed  upon  them  by  the  authority 
of  the  Church ;  when  they  proposed  to  listen  to 
it,  not  as  a  law  which  must  be  interpreted  and 
modified  by  other  laws,  but  as  the  one  only  rule 
of  faith  and  life,  —  then  it  became  necessary  to 
define  with  precision  what  writings  contained 
this  law  and  whence  they  derived  their  author- 
ity. In  answering  these  questions  the  Church 
of  Rome  found  no  difficulty.  Even  before 
the  Council  of  Trent  was  convened,  one  of  her 
theologians  had  asked,  "  How  can  you  know 
that  the  Scriptures  are  canonical  except  by  the 
Church  ?  "  Another  had  said,  "  The  whole 
authority  which  the  Scripture  has  among  us 
necessarily  depends  upon  the  authority  of  the 
Church."  "It  is  the  Church  which  has  in- 
vested with  authority  certain  books  .  .  .  which 
did  not  derive  this  authority  either  from  them- 
selves or  from  tlieir  authors."  When  Luther 
objected  to  Eck's  citing  a  passage  from  Second 
Maccabees  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory, 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  37 

Eck  replied,  "  But  the  Church  has  received 
these  books  into  the  Canon."  To  which  Luther 
answered  :  "  The  Church  cannot  give  more 
authority  or  force  to  a  book  than  it  has  in 
itself.  A  Council  cannot  make  that  be  Scrip- 
ture which  in  its  own  nature  is  not  Scripture."  ^ 

These   quotations  sufficiently  show  the  dia-  Luther  was 
metrical  contradiction  between  the  position  of  l°e^nore 
Luther  and  that  of  the  Romanists.    The  Church  «^«c«.     \^ 
of  Rome  decreed  that  the  Old  Testament  books 
(both  those  we  receive  and  those  called  Apocry- 
phal), and  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  as 
we  now  have  them,  be  received  as  Scripture. 
They  instituted  no  further  inquiries  into  their 
authenticity  ;    they   simply   closed    all    debate 
regarding  this  matter   by  accepting   Jerome's 
Vulgate.     With   Luther   such  an  easy  course 
was  impossible.     Denying  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  he   was    compelled    to    define    clearly 
the  authority  on  which  he  rested.      Claiming 
the  words  of  God  as  his  sole  authority,  he  must 
set  forth  with  distinctness  where  the  Word  of 
God  is  to  be  found  and  how  he  can  recognize  it 
to  be  the  Word  of  God.     There  were  two  ques-  and  asks 
tions  which    Luther   found   himself   driven  to  tior^^^ ' 
answer :  What  assures  me  that  Scripture  is  the 
Word  of  God,  and  therefore  authoritative?  and, 
1  C.  Berger,  "  Histoire  de  la  Vulgate,"  p.  86. 


38       The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

What  books  are  Scripture  ?  Prior  to  the  ques- 
tion, What  is  the  Canon  of  inspired  Scripture  ? 
comes  the  question,  Is  there  an  inspired  Scrip- 
ture ?  Piior  to  the  question,  What  writings  con- 
tain the  Word  of  God  ?  comes  the  question,  Is 
there  a  Word  of  God  ?  We  cannot  understand 
Luther's  answer  to  the  one  question  unless  we 
"  recognize  his  attitude  toward  the  other. 
Is  there  a  Now,   according  to  Luther,  the  prior  ques- 

God?  t\o\\,  Is  there  a  Word  of  God?  or,  Has  God 

spoken  ?  is  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and 
with  certainty,  by  every  man  in  whom  the  Word 
of  God  attests  its  own  Divine  origin  and  au- 
thority, and  it  can  be  answered  with  an  assured 
affirmative  by  none  beside.  Luther's  explicit 
and  constant  teaching  is  that  this  word  is  self- 
evidencing  and  needs  no  authority  at  its  back, 
but  carries  in  it  its  own  authentication.  Let  us 
hear  some  of  his  own  strong  statements  to  tliis 
\/ effect.  Sliowing  that  the  question  between  him- 
self and  Rome  was  not  whether  God  was  to  be 
obeyed  when  He  spoke,  —  for  they  were  agreed 
as  to  that,  —  he  goes  on  :  "  The  Romanists  say. 
Yes,  but  how  can  we  know  what  is  God's  Word, 
and  what  is  true  or  false  ?  We  must  learn  it 
from  the  Pope  and  the  Councils.  Very  well, 
let  them  decree  and  say  what  they  will,  still 
say   I,    Thou   can'st   not    rest    thy    conlidence 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  39 

thereon,  nor  satisfy  thy  conscience  :  thou  must 
thyself  decide,  thy  neck  is  at  stake,  thy  life  is 
at  stake.  Therefore  must  God  say  to  thee 
in  thine  heart,  This  is  God's  Word,  else  it  is 
still  undecided."  Again:  "Thou  must  be  as 
certain  that  it  is  the  Word  of  God  as  thou  art 
certain  that  thou  livest,  and  even  more  certain, 
for  on  this  alone  must  thy  conscience  rest. 
And  even  if  all  men  came,  aye,  even  the  angels 
and  all  the  world,  and  determined  something, 
if  THOU  can'st  not  form  nor  conclude  the  deci- 
sion, thou  art  lost.  For  thou  must  not  place 
thy  decision  on  the  Pope  or  any  other,  thou 
must  thyself  be  so  skilful  that  thou  can'st  say, 
God  says  this,  not  that;  this  is  right,  that  is 
wrong ;  else  it  is  not  possible  to  endure.  Dost 
thou  stand  upon  Pope  or  Concilia?  Then  the 
Devil  may  at  once  knock  a  hole  in  thee  and 
insinuate,  '  How  if  it  were  false,  how  if  they 
have  erred  ? '  Then  thou  art  laid  low  at 
once.  Therefore  thou  must  bring  conscience 
into  play,  that  thou  may'st  boldly  and  defiantly 
say,  That  is  God's  Word,  on  that  will  I  risk 
body  and  life,  and  a  hundred  thousand  necks 
if  I  had  them.  Therefore  no  one  shall  turn 
me  from  the  Word  which  God  teaches  me,  and 
that  must  I  know  as  certainly  as  that  two  and 
three  make  five,  that  an  ell  is  longer  than  a 


40       The  Bible :   Its   Oriyin  and  Nature 

half.     That  is  certain,  and  though  all  the  world 

speak  to  the  contrary,  still  I  know  that  it  is 

not  otherwise.     Who  decides  me  there?     No 

man,  but  only  the  truth  which  is  so  perfectly 

certain  that  nobody  can  deny  it." 

Seif-evidenc-       Why  is    Lutlicr   SO   urgent   on   this   point  ? 

^GodthT        -^^  ^^  urgent  because  he  sees  that  the  whole 

basis  of         difference  between  himself   and  Rome  hinges 

Protestant- 

ism.  here.     If  he  cannot  make  good  this  position, 

that  the  truth  or  the  Word  of  God  has  jiower 
to  verify  itself  as  such  to  the  conscience  it 
awakens,  he  has  no  standing  at  all.  The  prin- 
ciple which  made  him  a  Protestant,  and  which 
constitutes  men  Protestants  always,  is  simply 
this,  that  the  soul  needs  not  the  intervention 
of  any  authority  to  bring  it  into  contact  with 
God  and  the  truth,  but  that  God  and  His  truth 
have  power  to  verify  themselves  to  the  indi- 
vidual. Luther  did  not  accept  the  Gospel 
because  it  was  written  in  a  book  he  believed 
to  be  inspired,  or  canonical,  or  the  Word  of 
God;  but  he  accepted  it  because  it  brought 
new  life  to  his  spirit  and  proved  itself  to  be 
from  God.  He  did  not  accept  Christ  because 
•  he  had  first  of  all  accepted  the  Scriptures,  but 
he  accepted  the  Scriptures  because  they  testi- 
fied of  a  Christ  he  felt  constrained  to  accept. 
In  short,  it  is  the  truth  which  the  Scriptures 


The   Canon  of  Scripture  41 

contain  which  certify  him  that  they  are  the 
Word  of  God ;  it  is  not  his  belief  that  they 
are  the  Word  of  God  which  certifies  him  of 
the  truth  they  contain.  The  proclamation  of 
God's  grace  quickening  a  new  life  within  him 
convinced  him  this  proclamation  was  from  -^ 
God. 

The  difference  between   the   Romanist   and  Differentia 

of  t^ VOt€S^ 

the  Protestant  is  not  what  it  is  so  often  said  tantism. 
to  be,  that  the  Romanist  accepts  the  Church 
as  his  infallible  authority,  while  the  Protestant 
accepts  the  Scriptures  as  his  infallible  author- 
ity. The  Romanist  equally  with  the  Protestant  ^^ 
accepts  the  authority  of  Scripture.  The  dif- 
ference lies  deeper.  The  difference  lies  here ; 
that  the  Romanist  accepts  Scripture  as  the 
Word  of  God  because  the  Church  tells  him 
so,  the  Protestant  accepts  it  as  the  Word  of 
God  because  God  tells  him  so.  The  Protestant 
believes  it  to  be  God's  Word  because  through 
it  God  has  spoken  to  him  in  such  sort  as  to 
convince  him  that  it  is  God  who  here  speaks. 
This  is  the  one  sure  foundation-stone  of  Prot- 
estantism, —  the  response  of  the  individual  con- 
science to  the  self -evidencing  voice  of  God  in 
Scripture.  He  does  not  need  to  go  to  the 
Church  to  ask  if  this  be  God's  Word ;  his  con- 
science tells  him  it  is.     Deeper  than  that  for  a 


42       The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

foundation  of  faith  you  cannot  get,  and  an}^  faith 
that  is  not  so  deeply  founded  is  insecure  —  it 
may  last,  and  it  may  bring  a  man  to  all  needed 
benefit,  but  it  is  not  reasonably  defensible,  and 
^^  therefore  it  is  liable  to  be  upset. 

This,  then,  was  Luther's  first  position  regard- 
ing Scripture  ;  this  was  the  fundamental  posi- 
tion on  which  Protestantism  is  reared;  viz. 
that  through  Scripture  God  Himself  so  speaks 
to  the  soul  that  the  man  is  convinced  without 
the  intervention  of  any  other  proof  or  authority 
that  this  is  the  Word  of  God.  The  individual 
does  not  need  the  Church  to  tell  him  that  this 
is  the  Word  of  God.  God  tells  him  so,  and 
makes  all  other  authority  superfluous. 
What  writ-        But  next  comes  the  question,  What  writings 

inqs  con-  ...  i  o        *  i  i 

tain  God's      contain  this  word .''     Are  we  to  carry  through 
Word?  ^j^^g  fundamental  principle,  and  maintain  that 

only  such  writings  can  be  accounted  Scripture 
as  approve  themselves  to  be  God's  Word  by 
renewing  or  building  up  the  fundamental  faith 
in  God  which  has  already  been  quickened  with- 
in us?  This  fundamental  principle  of  Prot- 
estantism—  that  God's  Word  is  self-evidencing 
—  can  we  carry  it  over  to  the  subject  of  canon- 
icity  and  make  it  the  sole,  absolute  test  of 
canonicity?  Or  can  we  at  any  rate  say  that 
whatever  agrees  with  the  Word  of  God  which 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  43 

at  first  begot  faith  in  us  and  presents  to  us  the 
same  Gospel  and  the  same  Christ  is  canonical  ? 
This  Luther  does,  subject  to  the  limitation  that 
it  springs  from  the  Apostolic  Circle.  Or  can 
we  only  use  this  fundamental  faith  of  our  own 
as  a  negative  test,  rejecting  whatever  does  not 
harmonize  with  that  faith  in  Christ  which  has 
given  us  spiritual  life,  or  at  any  rate  whatever 
contradicts  it  ?  In  other  words,  can  I  say  that 
all  those  writings  are  canonical  which  awaken 
faith  in  me,  or  can  I  say  that  all  those  writ- 
ings are  canonical  which  present  that  same 
Christ  whose  presentation  at  first  awakened 
faith  in  me ;  or  can  I  only  say  that  those  are 
certainly  not  canonical  which  do  not  harmonize 
with  faith  in  Christ  ? 

Now  we  shall  find  Luther's  answer  to  these  Luther'. 

..  •       .1        •     1  j_     ^  1  ansiver. 

questions  m  the  judgments  he  pronounced  on 

the  books  actually  forming  our  Canon.  Tak- 
ing up  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament, 
we  find  that  the  four  writings  —  Hebrews, 
James,  Jude,  and  Revelation  —  which  he  con- 
sidered to  be  non-apostolic,  are  relegated  to 
the  end  by  themselves,  and  introduced  with 
these  significant  words  :  "  Up  to  this  point  we 
have  been  dealing  with  the  quite  certain  (rech- 
ten  gewissen')  chief  books  (^Hauptbiicher')  of  the 
New   Testament.       But   these   four   following 


44       The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

have  in  times  past  had  a  different  position." 
He  then  goes  on  to  prove  briefly  but  convinc- 
ingly that  Hebrews  is  not  by  Paul  nor  by  any 
Apostle,  and  after  extolling  its  ability  and 
pointing  out  what  he  considered  faulty,  he 
remarks  that  "although  the  writer  does  not 
lay  the  foundation  of  faith,  which  is  the  Apos- 
tolic function,  he  yet  builds  upon  it  gold, 
silver,  precious  stones,  and  if,  in  accordance 
with  Paul's  words,  he  mingles  some  wood,  hay, 
stubble,  this  is  not  to  hinder  us  from  accepting 
with  all  reverence  his  teaching  —  although  it 
cannot  in  all  respects  be  compared  to  the  Apos- 
tolic Epistles."  His  criticisms  on  the  Apoca- 
Ij'-pse  are  also  very  outspoken :  "  My  spirit," 
he  says,  "can't  accommodate  itself  to  this 
book  :  the  reason  being  that  I  do  not  think  Christ 
is  taught  therein.'"' ''^  His  judgment  of  this 
book,  however,  underwent  considerable  modi- 
fication ;  and  although,  in  contradistinction  to 
the  body  of  modern  critics,  he  seems  never  to 
have  been  convinced  that  it  was  written  by  the 
Apostle  John,  it  is  not  probable  that  in  his 
later  years  he  would  have  spoken  of  it  so  slight- 
ingly.    But  in  his  introductory  remarks  to  the 

1  Luther's  "Prefaces"  are  to  be  found  in  old  editions  of 
his  translation  of  the  Bible.  See  also  Reuss's  "  Uistoire  du 
Canon,"  p.  347. 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  45 

Epistle  of  James  he  shows  more  explicitly  his 
criterion  or  test  of  canonicity.  He  refuses  to 
admit  this  Epistle  among  the  Haupthiicher  of 
the  New  Testament,  or  to  allow  its  Apostolic 
authorship,  and  he  defends  his  judgment  in 
these  words :  "  Herein  agree  all  the  genuine 
(rechtschaffene')  holy  books,  that  they  all  preach 
and  exhibit  Christ.  This,  indeed,  is  the  right 
touchstone  (c?er  rechte  Priifestein^  to  test  all 
the  books,  —  if  one  sees  whether  or  not  they 
present  Christ,  for  all  Scripture  witnesses  to 
Christ  (Rom.  iii.  21);  and  St.  Paul  will  know 
nothing  but  Christ.  That  which  does  not 
teach  Christ  is  not  Apostolic,  though  St.  Peter 
or  St.  Paul  teaches  it.  That  which  preaches 
Christ  is  Apostolic,  though  Judas,  Annas, 
Pilate,  or  Herod  teaches  it." 

Luther's  direct  test  of  canonicity,  then,  is,  Luther's 
Does  the  book  in  question  occupy  itself  with  canonicity. 
Christ  or  does  it  not  ?  So  says  Dorner :  ^ 
"  The  deciding  principle  as  to  whether  a  writ- 
ing is  to  pass  for  canonical,  lies,  in  a  dogmatic 
aspect,  according  to  Luther,  as  is  well  known, 
in  this,  whether  it  is  occupied  with  Christ." 
Luther,  in  short,  recognizes  that  God  has  an 
end  to  secure  in  making  a  revelation,  and  this 
end  is  to  bring  clear  before  men  His  will  for 

1  "  History  of  Protestant  Theology,"  E.  Tr.,  I.,  p.  252. 


quacy. 


46        The  Bible  :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

our  salvation;  or,  in  one  word,  Christ.     The 
books   that   promote   this   end    he   accepts   as 
canonical. 
Its  inacie-  But  while  this  was  Luther's  final  and  deter- 

mining test  of  canonicity,  it  is  obvious  that  he 
at  the  same  time  employed  some  preliminary 
test.  He  applied  his  final  test,  not  to  all  books 
he  knew,  but  only  to  a  number  already  selected 
and  already  passing  for  canonical.  He  never 
thought  of  carrying  his  principle  through  all 
literature  and  accepting  as  canonical  every 
book  that  was  occupied  with  Christ.  He  did 
not  accept  Augustine  and  Tauler  as  canonical, 
though  to  them  he  in  great  part  owed  his 
salvation,  his  peace,  his  light,  his  strength. 
And  it  may,  on  the  other  hand,  be  questioned 
whether,  with  all  his  boldness,  he  would  have 
dared  to  reject  any  writing  which  was  proved 
to  be  of  Apostolic  authorship.  In  point  of  fact 
he  does  not  reject  any  such  writing.  His  test 
of  canonicity  is,  in  short,  only  a  supplemental 
principle ;  it  is  a  principle  which  can  be  applied 
only  in  a  field  already  defined  by  the  applica- 
tion of  some  other  principle,  or  by  some  uni- 
versal usage  such  as  the  Church-collection  of 
Scriptures  had  sprung  from.  Luther's  method 
is  really  this :  he  first  accepts  at  the  hand  of 
Jerome  certain  candidates  for  admission    into 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  47 

the  Canon,  and  to  these  selected  candidates  he 
applies  his  test.  He  was  aware  that  up  to 
Jerome's  time  the  Church  had  always  been 
in  doubt  regarding  certain  of  these  writings, 
and  to  these  he  freely  applies  the  testing 
question,  Are  they  occupied  with  Christ? 

Theoretically^  therefore,  Reuss  is  right  in  say-  Reuss  on 
ing  that  Luther  did  not  look  upon  the  Canon 
as  a  collection,  more  or  less  complete,  of  all 
the  writings  of  a  certain  period  or  of  a  certain 
class  of  men,  but  as  a  body  of  writings  destined 
by  God  to  teach  a  certain  truth;  and  accord- 
ingly the  test  of  tlie  individual  writings  must 
at  bottom  lie  in  the  teaching  itself.  ^  But 
practically  what  Luther  did  was  to  apply  this 
test  only  to  writings  which  already  had  some 
claim  to  be  considered  Apostolical.  The  course 
of  his  thought  was  briefly  this :  he  arrived  at 
faith  in  Christ  before  he  reached  any  clear 
view  of  the  inspiration  or  canonicity  of  certain 
writers ;  he  reached  faith  in  Christ  apart  from 
any  doctrine  regarding  Scripture.  But  having 
believed  in  Christ,  he  found  that  certain  men 
had  been  appointed  by  Christ  to  witness  to  the 
great  facts  of  His  life,  death,  resurrection,  and 
gift  of  the  Spirit.  The  same  faith  which  ac- 
cepts Christ  as  supreme,  the  same  faith  which 

1  "  History  of  Protestant  Theology,"  E.  Tr.,  I.,  p.  344. 


48        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

produces  self-verifying  results  in  his  soul, 
compels  him  also  to  believe  that  the  commis- 
sion of  Christ  to  His  Apostles  was  actually 
effectual  and  that  they  are  the  appointed, 
normative  witnesses  to  Him  and  His  salvation. 
The  writings  of  these  Apostles  he  accepts, 
though  holding  himself  free  to  reject  them  if 
they  contradict  the  fundamental  faith  in  Christ 
which  gave  him  his  new  life.  Tlie  other  books, 
whose  authorship  is  doubtful,  but  which  from 
the  first  have  claimed  admittance  to  the  New 
Testament  Canon,  he  judges  purely  on  their 
merits,  rejecting  or  admitting  as  he  finds  they 
do  not  or  do  fit  into  the  Apostolic  teaching. 
Liberty  This,  it  will  be  said,  leaves  a  ragged  edge  on 

Luther  ^^^®  Canon.     It  leaves  much  to  be  decided  by  the 

individual.  A  man  may  say  to  Luther,  "  I  do 
not  find  in  the  gospel  of  John  agreement  with 
the  three  synoptic  gospels,  and  as  you  throw 
over  James  because  he  does  not  agree  with 
Paul,  so  I  throw  over  John  because  he  does  not 
agree  with  the  synoptists."  And  Luther  could 
have  made  no  satisfactory  reply.  Better,  he 
would  think,  let  a  man  accept  Scripture  from 
his  own  feeling  of  its  truth  than  compel  him 
to  do  so  by  some  external  compulsion.  Indeed, 
his  boldness  in  pronouncing  his  own  opinion 
is  quite  equalled  by  his  explicit  and  repeated 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  49 

allowance  of  liberty  to  every  other  man.  Thus, 
though  he  himself  did  not  accept  the  Apoca- 
lypse as  the  work  of  John,  he  hastens  to  add, 
"  No  man  ought  to  be  hindered  from  holding  it 
to  be  a  work  of  St.  John  or  otherwise  as  he 
will."  Similarly,  after  giving  his  opinion  of 
the  Epistle  of  James,  he  concludes,  "  I  cannot 
then  place  it  among  the  chief  books,  but  I  will 
forbid  no  one  to  place  and  elevate  it  as  he 
pleases."  So  that  if  Ave  find  ourselves  in  dis- 
agreement with  Luther  regarding  the  judg- 
ments he  pronounces  on  some  of  the  books  of 
Scripture,  this  is  only  what  he  himself  antici- 
pated. Neither  does  the  fact  that  his  prin-' 
ciple  can  never  be  applied  without  such 
discordant  results  emerging,  reflect  any  dis- 
credit on  the  principle  itself.  As  Reuss  says, 
"To  begin  to  speak  to-day  of  the  infatuation 
of  Luther's  method  of  procedure,  because  in  the 
details  of  its  application  one  cannot  always 
share  in  his  opinion,  this  only  proves  that  with 
the  modern  champions  of  a  pretended,  privi- 
leged orthodoxy,  ignorance  and  fatuity  go  hand 
and  hand  in  the  van." 

The  same  vagueness  which  marred  the  Lu-  CaMnistic 
theran  doctrine  of  canonicity  affected  the  Cal- 
vinistic  position.     The  inward  witness  cannot 
reasonably  be  expected  to  be  sufficient  for  the 


60        The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Confusion 
of  thought 
regarding 
Canon. 


Inadequacy 
of  inivard 
witness. 


task  of  certifying  every  word  that  God  has 
uttered  to  raan.  It  cannot,  in  other  words,  be 
expected  to  form  of  itself  a  sufficient  test  of 
canonicity. 

The  truth  is  there  seems  to  have  been  some 
confusion  of  thought  in  Calvinistic  writers, 
arising  from  the  fact  that  in  speaking  of  the 
autliority  of  Scripture  they  viewed  Scripture  as 
a  whole.  Challenged  by  the  Romanists  to  say 
how  they  knew  the  Bible  to  be  from  God,  they 
said.  We  know  it  to  be  from  God  because 
God's  Spirit  within  us  recognizes  it  as  His. 
But  this  inward  witness  could  only  become  a 
test  of  canonicity  if  the  Bible  were  an  indissolu- 
ble whole,  part  hanging  with  j^art,  so  that  each 
part  stands  or  falls  with  every  other  part. 

If,  in  order  to  prove  the  canonicity  of  all  the 
writings  in  the  Bible,  it  were  enough  to  say,  the 
Spirit  within  me  recognizes  God's  voice  in 
the  Bible  as  a  whole,  then  this  were  a  sufficient 
test.  If,  in  order  to  prove  the  canonicity  of 
the  Epistle  of  James,  it  were  enough  to  say,  I 
recognize  the  voice  of  God  in  the  Epistle  of 
John,  then  the  "  inward  witness  of  the  Spirit  " 
would  be  a  sufficient  test.  But  the  very  thing 
we  are  seeking  for  is  that  which  brought  the 
parts  together.,  the  principle  on  which  the  Church 
proceeded  when  it  took  one  writing  here  and 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  51 

another  there  and  brought  them  into  one  whole. 
What  is  it  which  is  characteristic  of  each  part, 
so  that  even  when  the  parts  were  lying  sepa- 
rate, they  could  be  and  were  recognized  as 
properly  belonging  to  the  Canonical  Scriptures  ? 
The  question  seeking  solution  is,  why  do  we  re- 
ceive this  or  that  book  into  the  Canon  ?  There 
is  no  question  here  as  to  whether  we  have  a 
word  of  God,  nor  as  to  the  general  collection  of 
writings  in  which  we  find  that  word ;  the  ques- 
tion is,  how  do  we  know  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  or  the  EjDistle  of  Jude,  or  any  other 
individual  writing,  is  the  Word  of  God  ? 

The  Westminster  Confession  makes  "inspira-  Caninspira- 
tion"  the  test  of  canonicity,  although  it  does  test  of  can- 
not in  express  terms  say  so.     After  naming  the  o^^<^i^y^ 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  it  pro- 
ceeds, "  all  which  are  given  by  inspiration  of 
God  ;  "  and  then  in  section  3  it  goes  on,  "  The 
books  commonly  called  Apocrypha,  not  being  of 
Divine  inspiration,  are  no  part  of  the  Canon  of 
Scripture."     That  is  to  say,  writings  which  are 
inspired  are  canonical,  writings  not  inspired  are 
not  canonical.     But   how  are  we   to  discover    — 
what  writings  are  inspired?     The  Confession, 
singularly  enough,  says  nothing  of    Prophetic 
and  Apostolic  authorship,  but  refers  us  to  the 
various  marks  of  divinity  in  the  writings  them- 


52        The  Bible :    Its   Origin  and  Nature 


How  can 
inspiration 
be  recog- 
nized ? 


Inspiration 
not  always 
recogniz- 
able. 


selves,  and  concludes  in  the  well-known  words, 
"  Our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infal- 
lible truth  and  Divine  authority  thereof,  is  from 
the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing 
witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts." 

There  are  two  processes  by  which  we  can 
arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  a  writing  is  in- 
spired. First,  as  in  reading  any  book  we  form 
an  opinion  of  it  and  either  pronounce  it  stupid 
or  feel  in  it  the  touch  of  genius,  so  in  reading 
the  work  of  an  inspired  man  we  may  arrive  at 
the  conclusion  that  it  has  been  written  with 
Divine  aid.  There  may  be  that  in  it  which 
makes  us  feel  that  we  have  to  do  with  a  Divine 
as  well  as  a  human  author.  Second,  we  may 
believe  in  the  inspiration  of  a  book,  because 
we  first  of  all  believe  in  Christ  and  find  that 
He  authorized  certain  persons  to  speak  in 
His  name  and  with  His  authority  and  spirit. 
When  the  well-authenticated  writings  of  such 
persons  come  into  our  hands,  we  accept  them, 
if  we  are  already  Christian. 

But  there  are  books  in  the  Bible  whose  in- 
spiration cannot  be  ascertained  by  either  of 
these  methods.  There  are  books  of  which  we 
cannot  say  that  they  are  written  by  prophet 
or  apostle  or  otherwise  commissioned  person ; 
Chronicles,  Esther,  Job,  Ecclesiastes,  —  no  one 


The   Canon  of  Scripture  53 

knows  who  wrote  these  books.  One  of  the 
methods  of  ascertaining  inspiration  is  therefore 
closed  to  us.  And  as  to  the  other  method,  the 
inward  witness,  I  am  not  persuaded  that  John 
Owen  himself  could  have  detected  the  book  of 
Esther  as  an  inspired  book,  had  it  been  found 
lying  outside  the  Canon.  How,  then,  can  we 
justify  the  admission  of  such  a  book  as  Esther 
—  a  book  of  which  the  authorship  is  unknown, 
and  to  which  the  inward  witness  bears  at  the 
best  a  somewhat  doubtful  testimony  so  far  as 
regards  its  inspiration? 

To  say  that  we  accept  it  because  the  Jews  True  test  of 
accepted  it,  is  simply  to  fall  back  to  the  Ro-  ^""°"^*'^*  y- 
manist  position  and  take  our  Canon  at  the 
hands  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Church. 
To  affirm  that  the  men  who  settled  the  Canon 
were  inspired,  is  to  assume  what  cannot  be 
proved,  and  even  to  affirm  what  we  know  to 
be  false,  because  discussion  was  still  going  on 
among  the  Jews  regarding  their  Canon  as  late 
as  the  year  96  a.d.  We  can  only  justify  the 
admission  of  these  books  on  some  such  general 
ground  as  that  of  Luther  —  their  congruity  to 
the  main  end  of  revelation.  If  by  "  canonical 
writings  "  we  mean  the  writings  through  which 
God  conveys  to  us  the  knowledge  of  the  reve- 
lation He  has  made,  if  this  be  the  prominent 


54        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


All  canon- 
ical Scrip- 
tures not 
equally 
important. 


idea,  and  if  their  being  the  rule  of  faith  and 
life  be  an  inference  from  this,  then  we  get  a 
broader  basis  for  the  Canon  and  can  admit  into 
it  all  writings  which  have  a  direct  connection 
with  God's  revelation  of  Himself  in  Christ. 
If  the  book  in  question  gives  us  a  link  in  the 
history  of  that  revelation,  or  if  it  represents 
a  stage  of  God's  dealings  and  of  the  growth 
His  people  had  made  under  these  dealings,  and 
if  it  contains  nothing  which  is  quite  inconsist- 
ent with  the  idea  of  its  being  inspired,  then 
its  claim  to  be  admitted  seems  valid.  There- 
fore I  would  be  disposed  to  say  that  the  two 
attributes  which  give  canonicity  are  congruity 
with  the  main  end  of  revelation  and  direct  his- 
torical connection  with  the  revelation  of  God 
in  history  .1 

It  may  indeed  be  said  that  if  such  a  book  as 
Esther  were  lost,  nothing  that  is  essential  to  the 
history  would  be  lost,  or  that  if  several  of 
the  Psalms  were  lost  nothing  essential  would 
be  lost.  But  this  is  really  to  say  no  more  than 
that  a  man  who  has  lost  a  joint  of  a  finger  or  a 
toe  has  lost  nothing  essential.  No  doubt  he  can 
live  on  and  do  his  work,  but  he  is  not  a  com- 
plete man.     And  there  are  parts  of  the  body  of 

1  A  similar,  if  not  identical,  conclusion  was  reached  by 
the  late  A.  B.  Bruce,  but  I  have  lost  the  reference. 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  55 

which  it  is  very  difficult  to  say  why  they  are 
there,  or  why  they  are  of  the  particular  form 
they  are ;  but  there  they  are,  and  the  want  of 
them  would  seem  a  deformity.  So  of  the  Bible, 
we  may  not  be  able  to  say  of  every  part  what 
is  its  exact  relation  to  the  whole  ;  nor  yet  may 
we  be  able  in  honesty  to  say  that  we  think  any- 
thing essential  would  be  lost  were  certain  por- 
tions of  Scripture  to  be  removed ;  and  yet  he 
would  be  a  rash  man  who  would  dare  to  aver 
that  he  could  improve  upon  the  Canon,  or  who 
should  think  it  needful  to  excise  from  it  such 
parts  as  to  himself  may  seem  unimportant. 

From  all  this,  then,  we  must  gather  (1)  that  Canon  not 
churches  should  be  cautious  in  speaking  of  the  definite. 
Canon  as  an  absolutely  defined  collection  of 
writings,  thoroughly  and  to  a  nicety  ascertained, 
based  on  distinct  principles  and  precisely  sepa- 
rated at  every  point  from  all  extracanonical 
literature.  There  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that 
the  bulk  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
come  to  us  so  accredited  that  to  reject  them  is 
equivalent  to  rejecting  the  authority  of  Christ ; 
but  a  few  are  not  so  accredited,  and  it  is  a 
question  whether  our  creeds  ought  not  to  reflect 
the  fact  that  in  the  early  Church  some  books 
were  universally  admitted  into  the  Canon, 
while  regarding  seven  of  the  books  of  our  New 


56        The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

Testament  grave  doubts  were  entertained.  The 
position  taken  by  one  of  the  greatest  cham- 
pions of  Protestantism,  Chillingworth,  is  one 
that  commends  itself  :  "  I  ma^  believe  even 
those  questioned  books  to  have  been  written 
by  the  Apostles  and  to  be  canonical ;  but  I  can- 
not in  reason  believe  this  of  them  so  undoubt- 
edly as  of  those  books  which  were  never 
questioned :  at  least  I  have  no  warrant  to  damn 
any  man  that  shall  doubt  of  them  or  deny  them 
now,  having  the  example  of  saints  in  heaven, 
either  to  justify  or  excuse  such  their  doubting 
or  denial."  This  was  the  position  of  Luther 
and  of  the  Reformers  generally,  and  for  my 
part  I  think  it  a  pity  it  was  ever  abandoned. 
It  is  not  a  calamity  over  which  one  need 
make  great  moan,  but  unquestionably  the  com- 
bining of  less  authenticated  books  with  those 
that  are  thoroughly  authenticated  has  rather 
tended  to  bring  the  latter  class  under  suspicion 
with  persons  ignorant  of  their  history. 
Proper  atti-  We  also  gather  (2)  what  ought  to  be  the 
p^rotestani.  attitude  of  the  ordinary,  lay  Protestant  toward 
this  subject  of  the  Canon.  Sometimes  Roman- 
ists have  taunted  us  with  the  absurdity  of 
inviting  each  Protestant,  educated  or  unedu- 
cated, to  settle  the  Canon  for  himself.  The 
taunt  is  based  on  a  misconception.     It  is  the 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  57 

right  of  every  Protestant  to  inquire  into  the 
evidence  on  which  certain  books  are  received  as 
canonical,  and  the  more  that  right  is  exercised, 
the  better.  But  even  when  the  right  is  not  used, 
it  is  not  thereby  resigned.  Protestants  receive 
the  Canon  as  they  receive  historical  facts,  on 
the  testimony  of  those  who  have  pursued  this 
line  of  inquiry.  We  may  never  have  individu- 
ally looked  into  the  evidence  for  Alexander's 
invasion  of  India,  but  we  take  it  on  the  word 
of  those  best  informed  regarding  historical  mat- 
ters, reserving  of  course  the  right  to  examine 
it  ourselves  if  need  arises.  So  on  this  subject 
of  the  Canon,  the  lay  Protestant  accepts  the 
judgment  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  feeling 
tolerably  confident  that  after  all  the  research 
and  discussion  which  learned  men  have  spent 
upon  this  subject,  the  results  cannot  be  seri- 
ously misleading.  But  he  of  course  reserves 
the  right  to  inquire  for  himself  if  opportunity 
should  arise,  and  does  not  dream  that  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Church  binds  him  to  accept  certain 
books  as  Divine.  The  Protestant  accepts  the 
decision  of  the  Church  precisely  as  he  accepts 
the  decision  of  engineers  or  medical  men  or 
experts  of  any  kind  in  their  respective  depart- 
ments—  he  accepts  it  as  the  result  arrived  at 
after   deliberation    by   competent    men.      The 


tion  invited. 


58       The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

Romanist  accepts  the  decision  of  the  Church 
as  a  decree  or  law  issued  because  the  Church 
wills  it  so,  and  not  as  the  mere  finding  of  learned 
men  ;  and  the  Romanist  has  no  right  to  revise 
the  Church's  decision.  The  Romanist  holds 
that  the  Church  has  power  to  make  books 
canonical ;  the  Protestant  holds  that  irrespec- 
tive of  any  ecclesiastical  decision  there  is  that 
in  the  books  themselves  which  makes  them 
canonical.  To  confound  the  two  positions  is 
ignorant  or  malicious. 
Investiga-  (3)    Again,  Protestants  are  taunted  with  the 

diversity  of  opinion  consequent  on  leaving  such 
questions  to  individual  research  and  private 
judgment.  I  reply  that  it  is  a  vast  advantage 
so  to  leave  such  questions,  for  it  is  to  invite 
investigation,  and  to  invite  investigation  is  to 
secure  that  one  day  the  truth  will  shine  in  the 
eye  of  the  world.  What  value  attaches  to  the 
unanimity  that  is  secured  by  closing  every  one's 
eyes,  and  shutting  every  one's  mouth?  That 
unanimity  alone  is  valuable  which  the  truth 
itself  commands.  And  this  unanimity  can  only 
be  attained  by  diligent,  reverent,  truth-seeking 
investigation.  For  my  part,  I  think  Luther 
was  right  in  holding  that  regarding  some  of 
the  books  there  must  be  difference  of  opinion 
always ;  but  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  New  Testa- 


The  Canon  of  Scripture  59 

ment,  —  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  the  First  of  Peter,  and  the  First  of 
John,  —  as  there  was  no  difference  of  opinion  in 
the  early  Church,  so  eventually  there  will  be 
entire  agreement.  Men  do  not  differ  regarding 
the  authorship  of  "  Hamlet,"  nor  the  esteem  in 
which  that  writing  should  be  held,  neither  will 
private  judgment  and  liberty  of  criticism  cause 
men  to  differ  regarding  the  canonical  books,  but 
will  rather  bring  them  to  the  only  agreement 
that  is  worth  having. 

Lastly,  let  us  remember  that  the  true  Protes-  Christ  the 
tant  order  is,  nrst,  laith  m  Christ ;  second,  laith  thorUy. 
in  Scripture.  Our  faith  in  Christ  does  not  hang 
upon  our  faith  in  Scripture,  but  our  faith  in 
Scripture  hangs  upon  our  faith  in  Christ.  Our 
faith  in  Christ  may  depend  on  Scripture  as  a 
true  history ;  but  not  as  an  inspired  canonical 
book.  It  is  Christ  as  presented  in  Scripture  or 
by  other  means,  by  preaching  as  in  the  first  age, 
and  often  now,  that  evokes  faith.  He  and  he 
only  is  the  true  Protestant  who  knows  that  God 
has  spoken  to  him  in  Christ,  and  who  knows 
this  irrespective  of  any  infallible  authority  sep- 
arable from  Christ  himself,  whether  that  au- 
thority be  the  authority  of  the  Church  or  the 
authority  of  Scripture.  We  must  not  shift  the 
ultimate  authority  from  Christ  to  Scripture. 


v^ 


Ill 

REVELATION 


Ill 

REVELATION 

If  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  par  excellence.  The  Bible 
because  it  is  the  organ  and  record  of  the  reve-  ^revelaHon. 
lation  of  Himself  which  God  has  given  in  his- 
tory, we  shall  understand  the  Bible  better  if  we 
endeavor  to  ascertain  what  we  can  regarding 
revelation.  It  is  a  subject  full  of  difficulty,  ob- 
scured and  perplexed  by  many  controversies,  and 
on  which  light  is  only  slowly  rising.  Avoiding 
as  far  as  possible  the  entanglement  of  needless 
discussions,  we  may  consider  (1)  What  is  meant 
by  revelation  ;  (2)  Whether  it  is  possible ;  (3) 
Whether  any  revelation  has  actually  been  made, 
and  where  ;  (4)  The  method  that  has  been  pur- 
sued ;  and  (5)  The  purpose  in  view. 

1.  First,  we  must  understand  what  we  mean  Meaning  of 
when  we  use  the  word  "revelation,"  for  it  has  '.^ewe^;^. 
been  and  is  used  in   different   senses.     Some-  tion." 
times  it  is  used  to  denote  the  immediate  com- 
munication of  truth  to  the  mind,  as  when  Paul 
affirms  that  it  was  by  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ 
he  had  received  his  gospel.     Sometimes  it  is 
63 


64       The  Bible :  Its   Origin  and  Nature 

used  of  the  external  manifestation  or  event 
through  which  truth  reaches  the  mind,  as  the 
Flood  is  spoken  of  as  a  revelation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  God.  Sometimes  it  is  used  of  the 
truth  revealed.  The  distinction  which  pre- 
vailed during  the  eighteenth  century  between 
natural  and  revealed  religion  imposed  a  special 
meaning  upon  the  word  "revelation,"  and  it 
was  used  to  denote  the  knowledge  of  God  which 
comes  to  us  not  through  nature,  but  through 
some  special  and  supernatural  action  of  God. 
Thus  Butler  says  :  "  Some  persons  upon  pre- 
tence of  the  sufficiency  of  the  light  of  nature 
avowedly  reject  all  revelation,  as,  in  its  very 
nature,  incredible,  and  what  must  be  fictitious. 
And  indeed  it  is  certain  no  revelation  would 
have  been  given,  had  the  light  of  nature  been 
sufficient  in  such  a  sense  as  to  render  one  not 
wanting  and  useless."  The  term  "revelation" 
is  thus  exclusively  applied  to  Christianity,  and 
Judaism  as  preliminary  to  it ;  and  is  therefore 
and  with  some  confusion  of  thought  applied  to 
the  Bible  itself  as  containing  the  substance  and 
history  of  this  revelation. 
Its  proper  But  this   use    of  the    word   is   unfortunate. 

For  it  assumes  that  God  has  not  revealed  Him- 
self to  any  who  are  beyond  the  pale  of  Chris- 
tianity, that  He  has  not  revealed  Himself  in 


use. 


Revelation  65 

creation,  and  has  actually  left  Himself  without 
a  witness  save  in  Jewish  and  Christian  circles. 
The  distinction  between  Christianity  and  other 
religions  would  be  better  expressed  by  the  terms 
"  perfect  "  and  "  imperfect "  or  "  final "  and  "pre- 
paratory "  than  by  "revealed"  and  "natural." 
For  at  the  basis  of  every  religion  there  is  neces- 
sarily some  knowledge  of  God,  however  slen- 
der ;  and  this  knowledge  of  God  can  only  be 
of  a  God  who  has  somehow  revealed  Himself. 
There  is  a  great  and  profound  truth  in  Pascal's 
words  put  into  God's  mouth  :  "  Thou  wouldest 
not  seek  Me,  hadst  thou  not  already  found  Me." 
All  the  feelings  after  God  which  are  seen  in 
the  various  races  of  mankind  are  evidence  that 
God  has  been  revealing  Himself  to  them.  Rev- 
elation, then,  should  be  kept  in  its  full  and 
proper  sense  and  be  used  to  denote  God's  mak- 
ing Himself  known  to  man,  whether  in  the 
natural  order  or  through  what  is  supernatural, 
whether  with  greater  and  more  convincing 
clearness  or  with  dim  intimations  of  His  pres- 
ence. 

Another   erroneous  view  of   revelation,  also  Not  the 
current  during  the  eighteenth  century,  was  that  ^^^^^  ^z  cer- 
it  meant  the  communication  of  certain  truths  to  ^"-^^  truths. 
the   human   mind  —  truths   which   the   human 
mind  of  itself  could  not  reach,  or  could  not  so 


66        The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

quickly  reach.  This  was  due  to  the  pedantic  and 
elaborate  dogmatism  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
The  Bible  had  so  persistently  been  used  as  a 
text-book  to  prove  dogma  that  this  came  to  be 
considered  its  main  use,  and  it  was  never  ques- 
tioned whether  some  higher  purpose  was  not 
meant  to  be  served  by  it.  Revelation  was 
identified  with  the  Bible,  and  it  was  taken  for 
granted  that  the  purpose  of  revelation  was  to 
impart  truth.  There  was  great  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  need  of  this  Divine  instruction 
and  as  to  its  contents.  Some  sup^^osed  that  in 
the  Bible  all  knowledge  was  to  be  found  ;  that 
scientific  and  metaphysical  mysteries  were  hid- 
den in  its  pages.  Each  of  its  utterances,  no 
matter  in  what  department  of  truth,  was  sup- 
posed to  be  final  and  authoritative.  "  Who," 
said  Calovius,  "  would  dare  to  set  the  authority 
of  Copernicus  above  the  authority  of  God  ? " 
Others  limited  the  pedagogic  function  of  Scrip- 
tures to  the  communication  of  truths  regarding 
God,  immortality,  and  duty.  The  Westmin- 
ster Shorter  Catechism,  to  the  question,  What 
do  the  Scriptures  principally  teach  ?  replies 
very  wisely,  "  The  Scriptures  principally  teach 
what  man  is  to  believe  concerning  God  and 
what  duty  God  requires  of  man."  Nothing 
could  be  better  as  an  answer  to  the  question, 


Revelation  67 

but  nowadays  such  a  question  would  not  be  the 
first  or  only  one  about  Scripture.  Scripture  is 
no  longer  looked  upon  as  a  lesson-book. 

One  has  only  to  look  at  the  Bible  to  see  how  Tiie  Bible 
singularly  ill  adapted  it  is  to  be  a  theological  logical  text- 
text-hook.  God's  object  throughout  human  ^'^°^- 
history  has  evidently  been  not  to  make  men 
theological  experts,  but  to  make  Himself  known. 
His  purpose  has  not  been  to  inform  men  regard- 
ing abstruse  mysteries,  free  will,  predestination, 
the  future  state,  but  to  give  them  assurance  of 
His  own  presence,  and  of  His  holiness  and  love. 
And  what  we  have  in  the  Bible,  therefore,  is 
not  an  inspired  catechism  nor  a  revealed  creed, 
but  a  record  of  the  great  momenta  of  God's 
revelation  of  Himself.  And  Jesus  Christ  be- 
ing that  consummate  revelation  of  God  which 
absorbs  and  eclipses  all  others,  the  Bible  may 
best  be  considered  as  either  a  preparation  for  or 
an  exhibition  and  explanation  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Revelation,  then,  is  not  exactly  equivalent  to 
the  Bible ;  and  although  it  might  mean  the  com- 
munication of  truth,  and  does  involve  the  com- 
munication of  truth,  yet  primarily,  and  properly, 
it  means  God's  making  Himself  known  to  man. 

2.    Possibility  of  Revelation. — To  discuss  the  Revelation 
possibility  of  revelation  is  needless.      Theists 
of  all  schools,  by  the  fact  of  their  theism,  admit 


68       The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

the  possibility  of  revelation.  They  are  theists 
because  behind  and  beneath  the  world  they 
discern  a  spirit  in  whom  is  life  and  purpose. 
Their  fundamental  belief  is  that  through  all 
with  which  we  are  in  sensible  contact  in  this 
life  God  makes  Himself  known.  Paul  indeed 
says  that  the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God. 
But  by  this  he  did  not  mean  that  it  attained  to 
no  knowledge  of  God,  but  only  that  it  did  not 
reach  a  perfect  knowledge  such  as  we  have  in 
Christ.  JVIax  Miiller,  on  the  other  hand,  affirms 
that  apart  from  Judaism  and  Christianity  men 
have  formed  the  highest  conception  of  God. 
But  this  is  the  exaggeration  of  a  man  biassed 
by  his  favorite  study.  The  world  apart  from 
Christ  has  not  reached  the  highest  conception 
of  God,  but  it  has  recognized  His  existence  and 
His  presence.  Theism  is  simply  the  declaration 
that  this  world  cannot  be  rationally  construed 
without  the  hypothesis  of  purpose  and  of  a  mind 
in  which  this  purpose  is  formed  and  by  which 
it  is  guided ;  that  is  to  say,  that  God  has  re- 
vealed Himself  in  the  constitution  of  the  world 
and  of  man.  The  harmony  of  all  nature  and 
the  tendency  of  its  most  various  constituents 
toward  one  end  are  becoming  daily  more  obvi- 
ous, and  theists  maintain  that  this  consistency 
of  nature  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  sup- 


Revelation  69 

position  that  it  is  governed  by  purpose.  The 
instinctive  persistency  with  which  through  all 
interruptions  man  cleaves  to  a  moral  ideal, 
never  ceasing  to  have  it  in  view  and  to  work 
toward  it,  implies  an  existence  superior  to  his 
own  in  which  that  ideal  is  actualized  and  which 
is  the  guarantee  of  his  attainment.  Chiefly  in 
these  two  directions,  in  the  harmony  and  prog- 
ress of  nature  and  also  in  man's  moral  ideal, 
theists  maintain  that  God  has  revealed  Him- 
self. 

On  the  other  hand,  to  deny  the  possibility  of  No  religion 
revelation  is  to  deny  the  possibility  of  religion  ^evdation 
or  to  declare  it  a  delusion.  "  Of  every  reli- 
gion," says  Principal  Fairbairn,i  "  the  idea  of 
revelation  is  an  integral  part  ;  the  man  who 
does  not  believe  that  God  can  speak  to  him  will 
not  speak  to  God."  However  hidden  and  in- 
comprehensible the  Divine  Being  is,  there  can 
be  no  religion,  unless  it  is  believed  that  there 
is  a  God,  and  consequently  that  somehow  that 
God  has  made  Himself  known.  And,  moreover, 
to  an  absolutely  silent  God  who  in  no  way 
responds  to  man's  yearning  for  fellowship  with 
the  Divine,  and  who  gives  no  intimation  of  His 
presence  by  word  or  deed  in  the  life  or  heart  of 
His  worshipper,  homage  must  soon  cease  to  be 
1  "Christ  in  Modern  Theology,"  p.  494. 


70        The  Bible :  Its   Origin  and  Nature 

paid.  As  Professor  Tiele  ^  says,  "  It  is  certain 
that  no  communion  of  man  with  his  God  is  pos- 
sible or  conceivable  if  all  the  aspirations  of  the 
pious  soul,  all  its  longings  and  entreaties  for 
help,  light,  and  sujDport,  are  to  end  in  the  de- 
spairing cynicism  of  Heinrich  Heine,  '  No  one 
but  a  fool  expects  an  answer.' "  A  religion 
that  is  entirely  one-sided  as  surely  falls  to  the 
ground  as  a  one-sided  bridge,  or  a  bird  that 
beats  its  wings  in  a  vacuum.  The  rudest  fetich 
worship  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  the 
unseen  has  a  will  and  can  Somehow  express  it. 
The  Greek  who  consulted  the  oracle,  the  Roman 
who  waited  for  the  augur's  decisions,  recognized 
that  religion  could  not  be  one-sided,  but  that 
there  must  be  Divine  response  to  human  in- 
quiry. And  although  often  rudely  enough  con- 
ceived, the  belief  in  God's  power  and  desire  to 
make  Himself  and  His  will  known  to  men  is 
sound  and  true. 
Ffleuierer's  A  priori^  it  might  justly  be  argued  that  spirits 
living  in  one  another's  presence  and  related  to 
one  another  as  are  God  and  man,  should  be  able 
^to  communicate  with  one  another.  Pfleiderer  in 
his  "  Philosophy  of  Religion  "  2  argues  thus  : 
"Why  should  it  be  less  possible  for  God  to  enter 

1  "Gifford  Lectures,"  II.,  p.  157. 

2  III.,  p.  305,  E.  Tr. 


argument. 


Revelation  71 

into  a  loving  fellowship  with  us  than  for  men  to 
do  so  with  each  other  ?  I  should  be  inclined  to 
think  that  He  is  even  more  capable  of  doing  so. 
For  as  no  man  can  altogether  read  the  soul  of 
another,  so  no  man  can  altogether  live  in  the 
soul  of  another ;  hence  all  our  human  love  is 
and  remains  imperfect.  But  if  we  are  shut  off 
from  one  another  by  the  limits  of  individuality, 
in  relation  to  God  it  is  not  so  ;  to  Him  our 
hearts  are  as  open  as  each  man's  heart  is  to 
himself;  He  sees  through  and  through  them, 
and  desires  to  live  in  them,  and  to  fill  them 
with  His  own  sacred  energy  and  blessedness." 

Others,  again,  have  argued  from  the  nature  of  niing- 
personality  that  a  Personal  God  must  neces-  ^argument. 
sarily  reveal  Himself.  Thus  Mr.  lUingworth 
has  shown  that  love,  desire  for  free  intercourse 
with  other  persons,  is  an  essential  of  person- 
ality. According  to  Mr.  lUingworth's  search- 
ing exposition  there  are  three  constituent 
elements  of  personality,  —  self-consciousness, 
the  power  of  self-determination,  and  desires 
which  irresistibly  impel  us  into  communion 
with  other  persons  ;  or,  in  other  words,  rea- 
son, will,  and  love.  "  We  are  so  constituted 
that  we  cannot  regard  inanimate  property, 
uncommunicated  knowledge,  unreciprocated 
emotion,    solitary    action,  otherwise    than    as 


^:^- 


72        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Is  direct 
intercourse 
with  Ood 
possible  f 


means  to  an  end.  We  press  on  through  it 
all  till  we  have  found  persons  like  ourselves 
with  whom  to  share  it,  and  then  we  are  at 
rest."  "We  require  to  find  in  other  persons 
an  end  in  which  our  entire  personality  may 
rest.  And  this  is  the  relationship  of  love." 
If  God,  then,  is  Personal,  this  essential  element 
of  personality  must  appear  in  Him.  He  must 
desire  the  existence  of  persons  in  whom  His 
nature  can  find  satisfaction.  And  all  who  fol- 
low Mr.  Illingworth's  argument  will  agree  with 
his  conclusion  that  "  we  cannot  conceive  a  Per- 
son freely  creating  persons  except  with  a  view 
to  hold  intercourse  with  them  when  created." 
Both  Pfleiderer  and  Illingworth  seem  to 
believe  it  possible  for  the  Divine  Spirit  to 
hold  direct  intercourse  with  the  human  spirit ; 
that  is  to  say,  that  the  Divine  Spirit  apart  from 
any  means  or  media  can  come  into  contact  with 
the  spirit  of  man  and  communicate  of  His  ful- 
ness to  him.  And  certainly  there  is  much  in 
Scripture,  if  not  in  common  experience,  which 
seems  to  justify  this  idea  ;  although  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  it  is  difficult  to  verify.  It 
is  indeed  at  this  point,  the  intercourse  or  con- 
currence of  the  human  and  the  Divine,  that 
the  human  mind  so  often  finds  itself  baffled  in 
various  directions  of  theological  inquiry. 


Revelation  73 

3o  Has  God  revealed  Himself,  and  where?  God  re- 
Necessarily  God  has  revealed  Himself  in  His  creation. 
works.  What  He  has  created  and  what  He 
has  done  manifest  His  character.  There  may 
or  may  not  have  been  minds  capable  of  appre- 
hending this  revelation,  but  none  the  less  has 
the  revelation  been  made.  As  you  ascertain  a 
man's  existence  and  come  to  understand  his 
character  from  his  actions,  so  God,  being  ever 
present  and  ever  operative  in  the  world,  neces- 
sarily manifests  His  existence  and  His  nature. 
If  all  this  vast  universe,  with  its  upholding  laws 
and  forces,  and  its  endless  variety  of  living 
forms,  has  sprung  from  the  design  and  creative 
will  of  God,  then  what  we  see  in  the  world 
around  us  cannot  fail  to  show  us  something  of 
the  nature  of  God.  The  heavens  declare  the 
glory  of  God.  There  is  much  indeed  that  is 
difficult  to  interpret,  —  the  cruelty,  the  pain 
that  appear  in  all  creation,  —  but  at  any  rate 
we  learn  the  magnitude  of  existence,  the  regu- 
larity and  resistless  power  of  its  forces,  and  so 
come  to  some  apprehension  of  the  resource  and 
unthinkable  power  of  God.  Slowly  the  idea  of 
God  has  grown  and  expanded  in  the  human 
mind  as  men  have  pondered  this  revelation  of 
Himself  in  the  world  :  many  grotesque  and 
dishonoring  thoughts  of  Him  have  had  their 


74        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  arid  Nature 

day  and  been  at  last  eliminated  ;  much  has  yet 
to  be  learned  from  this  manifestation  of  the 
unseen  Spirit  in  material  works,  but  doubtless 
the  revelation  is  there  for  those  who  can  under- 
stand it. 

"  Of  this  fair  volume  which  we  world  do  name, 

If  we  the  sheets  and  leaves  could  turn  with  care, 
Of  him  who  it  corrects  and  did  it  frame, 
We  clear  might  read  the  art  and  wisdom  rare  : 

Find  out  his  power  which  wildest  powers  doth  tame, 
His  providence  extending  everywhere, 
His  justice  which  proud  rebels  doth  not  spare, 
In  every  page,  no  period  of  the  same, 

But  silly  we,  like  foolish  children,  rest 
Well  pleased  with  colored  vellum,  leaves  of  gold, 
Fair  dangling  ribbons,  leaving  what  is  best, 
On  the  great  writer's  sense  ne'er  taking  hold  ; 

Or  if  by  chance  we  stay  our  minds  on  aught, 
It  is  some  picture  on  the  margin  wrought." 

—  William  Drumviond  (^Hawthornden), 

translated  from  Sonnet  by  Maritio. 

God  re-  But  as  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  reminds  us, 

veaiedin  ^^^  ^^^  « spoken,"  or  revealed  Himself  "in 
many  ways."  And  the  character  of  God  is 
more  distinctly  exhibited  in  the  nature  of  man, 
and  in  God's  government  of  him  in  providence. 
From  man's  recognition  of  his  own  moral 
nature,  his  instinct  to  approve  the  good,  his 
admiration  for  what  is  heroic  in  self-sacrifice, 
his  homage  to  what  is  loving,  he  concludes  the 


man. 


Revelation  75 

nature  of  God,  the  source  of  all  this,  his  Crea- 
tor. As  man  grows  in  good,  so  grows  his  idea 
of  God.  It  is  largely  through  his  own  efforts 
after  goodness  and  unaccomplishing  instincts 
for  goodness  that  he  perceives  what  God  must 
be.  The  best  that  is  in  him  is  surpassed,  infi- 
nitely surpassed,  by  God ;  and  as  he  himself, 
under  God's  educating  hand,  grows  to  perceive 
moral  beauties  and  ideals  that  previously  were 
hidden  from  him,  so  he  grows  in  wider  and 
truer  thoughts  of  God.  For  it  is  still  through 
his  own  nature  he  conceives  of  God.  As 
Whittier  puts  it :  — 

"  By  all  that  He  requires  of  me 
I  know  what  God  Himself  must  be." 

But  the  revelation  of  Himself,  which  prepared  In  history. 
for  God's  manifestation  in  Christ,  was  especially 
historical.  It  was  through  His  dealings  with 
men  in  providence  that  His  people  learned  to 
know  Him.  The  readiness  of  certain  races  to 
perceive  God  may  be  gathered  from  the  quick- 
ness with  which  they  deduced  from  the  Flood 
that  God  was  a  holy  God.  The  instinct  of 
conscience  was  seen  in  their  referring  to  their 
own  sins  this  devastating  visitation.  In  that 
event  God  conveyed  to  men  the  impression  that 
His  holiness  was  genuine  and  essential.     One 


76       The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

of  the  fundamental  lessons  which  men  could 
receive  was  then  given,  and  it  was  given  in  a 
language  suited  to  the  times  and  intelligible  to 
the  dullest  mind.  And  all  through  the  history 
of  Israel,  in  the  calamities  that  followed  wrons"- 
doing,  in  the  disgrace  and  weakness  that  fol- 
lowed unfaithfulness  to  God,  the  people  with 
always  increasing  clearness  recognized  that  it 
was  a  righteous  and  gracious  God  who  was  gov- 
erning them.  They  got  nearer  and  nearer  to  a 
true  insight  into  His  character,  and  this  they 
did  by  means  of  the  revelation  He  made  of  Him- 
self in  ordering  the  events  which  formed  their 
history. 
God  re-  It  is  especially  to  be  noticed  that  throughout 

Redeemer.  *^^  history  of  Israel  God  revealed  Himself  as  a 
Redeemer,  as  a  God  who  befriends  His  people  on 
earth;  thinking  tenderest  thoughts,  thoughts 
of  good  and  not  of  evil,  toward  them ;  forgiving 
their  iniquities,  rebuking  and  chastening  them, 
but  always  readily  receiving  them  again  into 
His  favor.  It  was  this  which  was  indelibly  im- 
pressed on  the  observant  minds  in  Israel,  that 
Jehovah  was  a  God  bent  upon  the  redemption 
of  His  people,  and  that  He  was  ever  alongside  of 
them,  carrying  forward  into  higher  stages  this 
redemptive  work.  The  Psalms  and  the  Proph- 
ets are  standing  evidence   that   this   was    the 


Revelation  77 

impression  made  upon  Israel  —  that  God  had 
actually  made  Himself  known  as  the  Redeemer 
of  His  people. 

But  all  this  revealing  history,  with  the  vary-  Revelation 
ing  experience  of  God's  people  under  His  hand, 
and  the  various  redemptive  institutions  which 
kept  alive  the  knowledge  of  God  already  won ; 
all  that  through  which  God  made  His  presence 
felt  and  His  attitude  known,  prepared  for  and 
culminated  in  the  consummate  revelation  made 
in  Christ.  Two  aspects  ox  this  revelation  mani- 
fest its  perfectness,  —  its  personality  and  its 
redeeming  efficacy. 

(1)  It  is  personal  and  thus  perfect.  In  Personal 
Christ,  God  manifests  His  personal  attributes  /ore  perfect. 
—  His  holiness,  His  love,  His  self-sacrifice  — 
in  personal,  human  actings.  He  brings  Him- 
self into  intelligible  connection  with  human 
affairs.  Only  when  Christ  appeared  could  it 
be  said,  "  He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the 
Father."  Only  then  could  men  say.  This  that 
we  see  in  Jesus  is  the  sympathy  of  God,  the 
devotedness  and  self-sacrifice,  the  forgiveness 
and  solicitude  for  the  sinner  that  are  in  God. 
Accordingly,  He  introduced  the  highest  idea  of 
God  men  have  ever  cherished,  —  an  idea  intro- 
duced by  His  own  year  or  two  of  public  life 
and  by  which  now  all  other   ideas   are  meas- 


78        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Redemp- 
tively  per- 
feet. 


Method  of 
revelation. 


ured.  Sometimes  one  feels  as  if  in  attributing 
to  God  all  good  we  were  merely  creating  a  God 
out  of  our  own  fancies  and  ideals.  But  when 
we  turn  to  Christ  we  find  that  it  is  from  His 
historical  figure  we  have  borrowed  our  ideals. 
In  Christ  we  have  all  the  God  we  seek.  In 
Him  we  have  a  personal  revelation  of  a  per- 
sonal God.  It  required  a  Person  fully  to  re- 
veal God. 

(2)  This  revelation  is  also  redemptively  per- 
fect. Christ  revealed  God  not  as  abstractly 
wise  and  holy  and  loving,  but  as  expressing 
and  using  all  Divine  virtue  and  resource  with  a 
particular  end  in  view,  —  that  of  redeeming  us 
from  evil.  And  this  has  so  been  achieved  in 
Christ  that  it  need  not  be  undertaken  over 
again,  nor  need  additions  and  supplements  be 
made  to  His  work.  When  He  said,  "  I  have 
finished  the  work  thou  gavest  me  to  do,"  he 
uttered  a  bare  truth.  In  Him  God  has  recon- 
ciled the  world  unto  Himself.  God's  thirst 
for  our  salvation  can  never  be  more  clearly  ex- 
pressed ;  nor  shall  we  ever  again  see  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation  so  put  forth. 

4.  We  have  to  ask,  What  has  been  the  method 
of  revelation?  Our  answer  to  this  question  de- 
pends upon  our  idea  of  God.  If  we  believe  in 
God  as  immanent  in  the  world  and  man,  then 


Revelation  79 

we  shall  necessarily  believe  that  God  reveals 
Himself  through  human  sensitiveness  to  the 
Spiritual  and  inquiry  after  Him.  If  we  believe 
in  God  as  merely  transcendent,  we  shall  think 
of  Him  as  moving  man  from  without.  In  the 
one  case  revelation  will  be  internal  and  natural ; 
in  the  other  it  will  be  external  and  supernatural. 

Belief  in  the  immanence  of  God  tends  to  immanence 
abolish  the  distinction  between  the  natural  and 
the  supernatural.  Everything  is  equally  natu- 
ral, or,  if  we  prefer  it,  equally  supernatural. 
All  nature  is  filled  with  the  presence  and  power 
of  the  living  God.  "  The  lily  can  as  little 
bloom  without  the  forthputting  of  His  energy 
as  the  prophet  can  reveal  Him  or  the  saint  grow 
into  His  likeness."  If,  then,  those  who  believe 
in  God's  immanence  maintain  that  all  revela- 
tion is  natural,  this  does  not  mean  that  it  is  not 
under  the  direct  control  of  God.  It  means 
that  revelation  proceeds  hand  in  hand  with 
human  development,  is  driven  forward  by  simi- 
lar forces,  and  regulated  by  the  same  laws,  all 
of  which  are  the  manifestation  and  expression 
of  God. 

The  important  point  on  which  to  fix  atten-  Method  is 
tion  in  our  own  day  seems  to  be  this  :   that 
whether  we  believe  in  the  immanence  of  God 
or  think  of  Him  as  transcendent,  we  must  bear 


80       The  Bible :   Its    Origin  and  Nature 

in  mind  that  in  any  case  He  is  spirit,  and  that 
His  operations  are  spiritual.  When  it  is  said 
that  He  "  spoke "  to  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
enjoining  this  or  that  institution,  or  communi- 
cating this  or  that  message,  we  are  not  to  think 
of  any  external  intimation  coming  through  the 
bodily  ear,  but  we  are  to  understand  that  the 
mind  and  spirit  of  the  prophet  were  enabled  to 

v/  perceive  what  was  the  mind  of  God.  It  was 
through  severe  mental  exercise  that  Paul  at- 
tained his  insight  into  Divine  things  and  his 
decisions  on  the  difficult  questions  of  practice 
which  were  referred  to  him.  As  Sabatier  says: 
"When  God  wished  to  give  the  Decalogue  to  Is- 
rael, He  did  not  write  with  His  finger  on  tables 
of  stone ;  He  raised  up  Moses,  and  from  the 
consciousness  of  Moses  the  Decalogue  sprang. 
In  order  that  we  might  have  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  there  was  no  need  to  dictate  it 
to  the  Apostle ;  God  had  only  to  create  the 
powerful  individuality  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  well 
knowing  that  when  once  the  tree  was  made, 

-'     the  fruit  would  follow  in  due  course."  ^ 
Instances  of       In   the   thirteenth   chapter   of    the   book  of 
Acts  we  have  a   significant  instance  of   reve- 
lation.    We  there  read  that  as  certain  Christian 
teachers  were  praying,  "the  Holy  Ghost  said, 
1  "Outlines  of  Philosophy  of  Keligion,"  p.  67. 


Revelation  81 

Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work 
whereiinto  I  have  called  them."  No  reader  of 
these  words  fancies  that  a  voice  audible  to  the 
bodily  ear  was  heard  uttering  this  command- 
ment. Every  reader  understands  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  worked  His  will  in  a  much  more 
inward  and  effectual  manner,  speaking  within 
the  mind  and  spirit  of  those  who  sought  His 
guidance.  Neither  can  we  suppose  that  with- 
out any  previous  expenditure  of  thought  on 
the  subject  these  men  had  this  idea  flashed 
into  their  mind  as  a  bolt  from  the  blue.  It 
came  as  the  result  of  their  endeavor  to  discover 
what  was  the  mind  of  God  or,  in  other  words, 
what  was  best  in  the  circumstances  to  be  done. 
They  were  inwardly  convinced  that  the  step 
they  proposed  was  the  mind  of  God.  No  more  j  ^ 
important  step  was  ever  taken  in  the  history  j 
of  the  Church  than  the  mission  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas.  And  this  step  was  taken  on  the 
safest,  surest  ground  of  inward  revelation  of 
the  mind  of  Christ.  They  were  convinced 
that  they  were  fulfilling  His  will  and  seeing 
with  His  eyes.  Here  we  have  a  key  to  the 
method  of  revelation.  Men  in  sympathy  with 
God  understand  His  will,  enter  into  His  thought, 
recognize  His  judgments  and  His  purposes,  and 
so  become  organs  of  His  revelation. 


82       The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

Criterion  of       But  if  it  is  thus  impossible  to  separate  the 

revelation.       .i  i-p  r  .1  t    .•  p    r^     ^ 

thoughts  01  man  irom  tne  revelation   01  God, 

it  may  be  asked,  How  can  any  one  certainly 

know  what  is  from  God  and  what  is  not  from 

God  ?  what  is  the  Divine  spirit  informing  the 

mind  with   true  views  of   Divine  things,  and 

what   is   a   lying    spirit    leading   men   astray? 

what   is   God   making   Himself   and   His   will 

known,  and  what  is  human  fancy  and  error? 

To  such  questioning  it  can  only  be  replied  that 

"for  the  individual  prophet  or  apostle  himself 

no  test  of  the  genuineness  of  the  revelations 

made  to  him  could  be  superior  to  his  own  firm 

and  clear  conviction  of  such  communion  with 

God." 

"  "Whoso  lias  felt  the  spii-it  of  the  Highest 
Cauuot  confound,  nor  doubt  Him,  nor  deny ; 
Yea,  with  one  voice,  Oh  I  world,  though  thou  deniest. 
Stand  thou  on  that  side,  for  on  this  am  I." 

And  if  it  be  asked  whether  the  Church  or  com- 
munity of  godly  people  is  bound  to  receive  such 
communications  on  the  word  of  the  prophet,  the 
answer  is,  No !  the  community  has  a  responsibil- 
ity as  well  as  the  prophet  and  must  receive  or 
reject  his  word  according  to  its  own  conscious- 
ness of  truth  and  of  God  in  the  message. 

But  the  method  of  revelation  will  be  more 
fully  understood  if  we  ask  :  — 


Revelation  83 

5.  Finally,  what  was  God's  purpose  in  re-  Purpose  of 
vealing  Himself  to  man  ?  It  may  be  said  gen- 
erally that  God,  being  a  God  of  love,  sought  to 
communicate  and  impart  of  His  own  fulness  to 
all  whom  He  had  made  in  His  image,  capable 
of  holding  fellowship  with  Him.  But  in  con- 
sidering particularly  the  revelation  recorded  in 
the  Bible  we  see  that  a  more  definite  and  par- 
ticular purpose  may  be  said  to  be  in  view.  For 
from  first  to  last  in  the  Bible  man  is  represented 
as  needing  redemption,  deliverance  from  evil 
and  sin.  Its  opening  scene  is  the  fall  of  man, 
and  all  God's  revelation  of  Himself  in  Israel  and 
in  Jesus  Christ  was  a  revelation  in  view  of 
man's  sin.  It  was  a  manifestation  of  God  as  a 
God  of  grace,  as  a  Redeemer.  And  it  was  a 
revelation  which  it  concerned  all  men  to  know. 
We  may,  therefore,  reasonably  conclude  that 
God's  purpose  was  to  bring  the  knowledge  of 
Himself  as  Redeemer  to  all  men. 

But  to  obtain  this  result  it  was  necessary  that  Recipients 
more  should  be  done  than  merely  that  God  °^^j^"^ "" 
should  manifest  Himself  in  the  history  and 
institutions  of  Israel  or  even  in  the  person  and 
life  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  was  needful  that  there 
should  be  men  fitted  to  recognize  and  appreciate 
these  manifestations.  The  initial  and  rudi- 
mentary intimations   of   God's  presence   were 


84        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

made  to  all  men.  Not  to  the  Jews  alone,  but 
to  all  men  has  God  manifested  Himself  as 
a  ruler  who  loves  righteousness.  But  where 
these  preparatory  lessons  were  not  received, 
higher  lessons  could  not  be  given.  In  Israel 
were  found  men  fitted  to  understand  what  God 
meant  to  teach.  They  were  men  whose  spirit 
was  in  sympathy  with  God.  In  other  words, 
inspiration  was  required  to  implement  revela- 
tion. In  order  to  utilize  revelation  there  must 
be  men  who  have  so  much  of  God's  spirit  in 
them  as  to  discern,  appreciate,  and  respond  to 
His  manifestation  in  nature,  in  history,  and  in 
Christ.  And  if  this  knowledge  and  apprecia- 
tion of  God's  revelation  are  to  be  a  permanent 
possession  of  the  race,  it  must  be  recorded  in 
writing. 

Apparently,  then,  if  revelation  is  to  answer 
its  purpose,  it  must  be  made  to  those  who  can 
understand  it,  and  it  must  be  recorded. 

Here,  then,  emerge  two  points  which  call  for 
fuller  discussion :  (1)  the  progressiveness  of 
revelation  and  (2)  its  record  in  writing. 

1.  Revelation  must  be  progressive  because 
it  must  accommodate  itself  to  the  condition  of 
those  to  whom  it  is  made.  It  used  to  be  one 
of  the  stock  difficulties  of  the  Deists,  Why  did 
not   God   reveal    Himself   in    Christ   at   first? 


Revelation  85 

Why  did  He  not  follow  up  the  fall  with  the 
immediate  manifestation  of  His  grace  ?  And 
in  our  own  day  it  is  commonly  objected  to  the 
Old  Testament  that  its  morality  is  imperfect  — 
a  difficulty  as  old  as  the  second  century,  when 
so  many  of  the  Gnostic  sects  were  stumbled  by 
what  they  found  in  the  Old  Testament  and  de- 
clared that  it  was  a  different  God  who  is  there 
represented.  All  such  difficulties  are  overcome 
as  soon  as  it  is  recognized  that  by  the  nature 
of  the  case  God  was  compelled  to  accommodate 
Himself  to  the  condition  of  those  with  whom 
He  had  to  do.  It  was  impossible  that  in  the 
childhood  of  the  race  such  a  knowledge  of  God 
could  be  received  as  was  possible  in  its  maturity. 

When  Plotinus  said,  "  He  must  become  god-  Accommo- 
like  who  desires  to  see  God,"  he  uttered  the  recipients. 
principle  which  lies  at  the  root  of  the  matter. 
"  Moral  affinity  is  an  essential  of  personal  in- 
timacy. A  man  cannot  understand  a  character 
with  which  his  own  has  no  accord."  We  can- 
not make  ourselves  understood  by  those  who 
are  utterly  unlike  ourselves,  neither  can  God. 
A  loving  and  unselfish  man,  who  goes  among 
persons  hardened  by  vice  and  who  have  never 
known  love,  is  sure  at  first  to  be  misunderstood, 
and  it  is  only  by  degrees  he  can  make  his 
character   known.       At   first  he  will   be   sus- 


86       The  Bible :  Its   Origin  and  Nature 

pected,  misjudged.  And  it  has  been  only  in 
proportion  as  men  have  become  capable  of  ap- 
preciating the  higher  and  diviner  qualities  of 
character  that  God  has  been  able  to  disclose 
Himself  more  and  more  fully  to  the  race.  The 
love  of  God  could  not  be  understood  until  His 
righteousness  and  holiness  were  understood.  It 
was  useless  for  Christ  to  die  until  the  heart 
and  conscience  of  men  had  firmly  grasped  holi- 
ness and  righteousness  as  essential  to  Divinity 
—  then  only  could  His  self-sacrijBcing  love  be 
fully  appreciated  and  intelligently  estimated. 
Morality  of  So,  too,  with  the  morality  of  the  Old  Testa- 
„jg^j  ment.       By  slow  degrees   morality  had   to  be 

cleansed  and  heightened,  and  if  we  wish  to 
ascertain  whether  it  is  a  Divinely  guided  pro- 
cess which  the  Old  Testament  records,  we  must 
ask,  not  what  the  early  stages  were,  but  what 
the  whole  process  resulted  in.  The  circum- 
stance that  men  in  some  sense  inspired,  and 
who  at  any  rate  were  the  organs  of  revelation, 
as  Abraham  and  David,  were  guilty  of  lying 
and  other  iniquities,  testifies  to  the  truth  of  the 
record  and  reflects  no  discredit  on  the  revela- 
tion. In  so  far  as  the  Divine  accommodation 
adapted  itself  to  the  imperfectly  moral,  with  the 
result  of  raising  them  to  a  higher  level,  that  pro- 
cedure is  justified. 


Revelation  87 

This  point  is  so  constantly  misunderstood  andin/er- 
that  a  word  or  two  more  may  be  given  to  it.  from. 
There  are  in  the  Old  Testament  not  only  im- 
moralities recorded,  as  there  must  be  in  any 
full  and  true  history,  but  there  are  actions  re- 
corded which  seem  to  have  the  Divine  sanction 
and  yet  are  condemned  by  the  New  Testament 
code.  The  practice  of  slavery  and  polygamy, 
the  slaughter  of  the  Canaanites  and  the  priests 
of  Baal,  the  destruction  of  innocent  children 
along  with  their  guilty  parents,  the  ferocious 
and  vindictive  expressions  in  many  of  the 
Psalms  addressed  to  God,  —  these  frequently 
stumble  readers  of  the  Bible. 

Regarding  these  things  the  argument  of  seep-  Sceptical 
tics  is  a  brief  one  :  This  book  professes  to  be  "''S'"'"'^^*- 
Divine,  but  it  represents  God  as  approving  of 
immoral  actions  and,  therefore,   it   cannot   be 
Divine.     Its  claim  is  false,  and  we  must  disre- 
gard it. 

This  argument  was  perhaps  justified  by  the  its  fallacy. 
claims  which  used  to  be  made  for  the  Bible  and 
by  the  manner  in  which  these  claims  were 
urged ;  but  the  argument  has  no  relevancy 
against  the  real  claim  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  just  and  true  view  of  God's  method  of 
revealing  Himself.  The  Old  Testament  is  a 
faithful   record    of    a   race    which   was    being 


88        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

trained  to  know  God  and  to  love  righteousness, 
and  it  shows  us  the  steps  in  their  progress. 
The  leading  men  of  this  race  were  sincere  and 
devoted  servants  of  Jehovah  and  were  in  true 
communion  with  Him,  but  they  had  not  a  per- 
fect knowledge  of  Him.  They  were  gradually 
advancing  toward  that  perfect  knowledge  which 
came  only  with  Christ.  They  were  able  to 
understand  only  so  much  of  the  Divine  nature 
as  they  had  grown  up  to,  as  a  child  cannot 
understand  the  whole  of  his  father's  character 
and  ways.  And  these  imperfections  in  the 
knowledge  of  God,  the  Bible,  being  a  true 
and  faithful  record,  freely  recounts  ;  briefly 
showing  us  how  the  best  men  among  the  Jews 
misunderstood  God,  but  how,  by  adhering  to 
His  law  and  seeking  to  hokl  fellowship  with 
Him,  they  gradually  elimmated  from  their 
knowledge  of  Him  all  that  was  crude  and  un- 
worthy. And  it  is  not  the  imperfections  and 
mistakes  which  disfigure  the  earlier  parts  of 
this  growth  which  should  arrest  our  attention, 
but  the  sure  and  grand  progress  that  at  last 
left  behind  all  these  imperfections  and  justified 
the  training  hand  and  spirit  of  God.  To  look 
upon  the  Old  Testament  as  depicting  a  final 
stage  in  knowledge  or  righteousness,  and  not 
as  a  preparation,  is  a  fatal  error ;  to  look  upon 


Revelation  89 

each  part  of  God's  revelation  by  itself  and  judge 
it  in  separation  from  what  goes  before  and 
after,  is  a  fatal  error.  If  we  would  have  clear 
views,  either  of  revelation  or  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, we  must  above  all  bear  in  mind  that 
revelation  was  a  growing  light  from  dawn  to 
perfect  day,  and  that  though  some  in  the  gray 
dawn  trusted  God  and  served  Him  as  faithfully 
as  their  successors,  it  was  not  possible  that  they 
should  know  Him  as  well. 

The  summary  argument  of  the  sceptic,  there-   True  con- 
fore,  falls  to  the  ground  when  it  meets  the  only  ^ofd^Tesia- 
true  idea  of  the  Old  Testament.     The  sceptic  »^e"^- 
who  coarsely  selects  from  the  Old  Testament 
all  that   shocks    the   modern    conscience    and 
thrusts   all  these  crudities   in    the    Christian's 
face,  saying,  "  That  is  your  God  —  a  God  who 
approves  slavery  and  vengeance,"  and  the  de- 
vout reader  who  wishes  these  things  were  out 
of   the  book  altogether,  alike  misconceive  the 
real  state  of  the  case.     God  "revealed  Himself  ^/ 
to  men  feature  by  feature  as  they  were  able  to 
receive  it.     He  did  not  lift  the  Jewish  people 
at  once  and  miraculously  to  the  stage  they  were 
at  length  to  reach.     He  did  not  supernatu rally 
impart  to  the  race  at  one  flash  the  knowledge 
of  Himself  which  He  meant  to  give  them  by 
guiding  their  national  history,  by  teaching  their 


90       The  Bible :   Its  Oriijin  and  Nature 


Christ  the 
criterion  of 
revelation. 


best  men  to  reflect  upon  that  history  and  strive 
to  advance  it.  He  revealed  Himself  to  them 
through  their  national  life,  through  His  deal- 
ings with  them  in  their  times  of  rebellion  and 
repentance.  He  was  in  no  hurry  to  remove 
misconceptions  ;  they  could  only  see  in  Him 
what  they  had  grown  up  to  be  able  to  see ;  and 
serving  Him  according  to  their  present  knowl- 
edge was  the  only  method  of  growing  to  know 
more.  The  circumstance,  therefore,  that  even 
men  like  Elijah  had  not  as  yet  the  conception 
of  God  that  Christ  has  given  us,  and  served 
Him  in  ways  that  our  conscience  cannot 
approve,  is  only  another  proof  that  the  Old 
Testament  is  a  true  and  helpful  account  of  the 
actual  process  by  which  God  revealed  Himself 
to  man. 

It  will,  however,  be  said :  If  this  is  so,  if  the 
Old  Testament  records  the  misconceptions  of 
good  men  as  well  as  their  contributions  to  the 
permanent  knowledge  of  God,  are  we  not  liable 
to  mistake  the  one  for  the  other  ?  If  God  is 
not  in  some  particulars  what  some  of  these  men 
thought  Him,  how  are  we  to  know  as  we  read 
the  Old  Testament  what  to  receive  and  what 
to  reject  ?  The  person  and  teaching  of  Christ 
are  our  test.  In  His  perfect  revelation  of  the 
Father  we    have    the   criterion   by   which    all 


Revelation  91 

that  is  imperfect  is  judged.  By  the  finished 
product  we  judge  each  part  of  the  process 
which  prepared  for  it.  If  you  read  the  his- 
tory of  the  steam  engine,  or  of  engraving,  or 
of  electricity,  or  of  astronomy,  or  any  science, 
you  find  that  discovery  has  gone  forward  step 
by  step,  and  that  brilliant  ideas  were  often 
accompanied  by  mistakes  which  for  a  time  kept 
back  the  result.  And  in  tracing  out  the  long 
history  of  any  discovery,  it  is  not  the  mistakes 
that  chiefly  engage  the  historian's  attention, 
but  the  continuous  thread  of  progress  that 
connects  the  earliest  thinker  with  the  latest. 
And  no  modern  astronomer  is  misled  by  the 
mistaken  ideas  regarding  the  motion  of  the 
sun  which  were  current  in  ancient  times  ;  nor 
is  the  engineer  who  possesses  the  actual  work- 
ing machine  perplexed  by  the  false  expecta- 
tions of  early  investigators  into  the  power  of 
steam.  And  no  sane  person  would  think  of 
pouring  scorn  upon  those  who  in  bygone  cen- 
turies worked  at  any  science,  but  did  so  with 
many  misapprehensions  of  the  truth.  They, 
with  all  their  mistakes  and  strivings,  were  the 
necessary  antecedents  to  our  knowledge.  In 
the  discovery  of  God  there  is  indeed  a  differ- 
ence. God  revealed  Himself,  and  did  not  leave 
man  to  his  natural  powers  of  discovery;  but  on 


92        The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

the  other  hand  God  could  only  discover  to  man 
what  he  was  fit  to  understand,  and  this  under- 
standing was  regulated  by  the  real  historical 
growth  of  the  human  mind.  To  look  back 
with  contempt,  then,  on  the  thoughts  and  ac- 
tions of  Old  Testament  saints  is  a  kind  of 
spiritual  parricide  ;  it  is  to  forget  the  rock 
from  which  we  are  hewn ;  it  is  to  despise  the 
great  pioneers  who  have  made  our  knowledge 
possible. 
Revelation,  2.  God's  purpose  in  revealing  Himself  being 
'^^dT  ^^  redeem  mankind,  it  was,  if  not  necessary,  yet 

most   desirable  that  the  revelation  should  be 
recorded. 

Bishop  Butler  has  indeed  said  that  "we 
are  not  in  any  sort  able  to  judge  whether  it 
were  to  have  been  expected  that  the  revela- 
tion should  have  been  committed  to  writing; 
or  left  to  be  handed  down,  and  consequently 
corrupted  by  verbal  tradition,  and  at  length 
sunk  under  it,  if  mankind  so  pleased,  and 
during  such  time  as  they  are  permitted,  in  the 
degree  they  evidently  are,  to  act  as  they  will. 
But  it  may  be  said,  '  That  a  revelation  in  some 
of  the  above-mentioned  circumstances,  one,  for 
instance,  which  was  not  committed  to  writing, 
and  thus  secured  against  danger  of  corruption, 
would  not  have  answered  its  purpose.'     I  ask, 


Revelation  93 

what  purpose?  It  would  not  have  answered 
all  the  purposes  which  it  has  now  answered, 
and  in  the  same  degree ;  but  it  would  have 
answered  others  or  the  same  in  different 
degrees.  And  which  of  these  were  the  pur- 
poses of  God,  and  best  fell  in  with  His  general 
government,  we  could  not  at  all  have  deter- 
mined beforehand."  This  is  a  most  useful 
corrective  to  our  readiness  to  presume  that 
such  and  such  must  have  been  God's  purposes, 
as  well  as  a  reminder  that  revelation  is  one 
thing,  the  recording  of  it  another,  and  that  it 
is  quite  conceivable  that  there  might  have  been 
a  revelation  without  any  written  record  of  it. 
Certainly  a  large  part  of  God's  revelation  of 
Himself  has  been  lost.  Much  of  His  revela- 
tion in  nature  is  not  yet  understood ;  His 
revelation  in  history  has  been  only  partially 
recognized;  even  His  revelation  in  Christ  is 
not  fully  recorded.  But  although  beforehand 
it  might  have  been  presumptuous  to  predict 
what  would  happen,  yet  now  that  we  find  so 
full  a  record  of  God's  revelation  actually  made, 
it  is  very  easy  to  recognize  the  immense  advan- 
tage of  this  procedure.  This  is  nowhere  better 
stated  than  in  the  Westminster  Confession. 
"  Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works 
of  creation  and  providence,  do  so  far  manifest 


94       The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

the  goodness,  wisdom,  and  power  of  God,  as  to 
leave  men  inexcusable,  yet  they  are  not  sufficient 
to  give  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  will 
which  is  necessary  unto  salvation  ;  therefore  it 
pleased  the  Lord  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
manners  to  reveal  Himself  and  to  declare  that 
His  will  unto  His  Church  ;  and  afterwards  for 
the  better  preserving  and  propagating  of  the 
truth,  and  for  the  more  sure  establishment  and 
comfort  of  the  Church  against  the  corruption 
of  the  flesh  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the 
world,  to  commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writ- 
ing; which  maketh  the  holy  Scripture  to  be 
most  necessary  ;  those  former  ways  of  God's 
revealing  His  will  unto  His  people  being  now 
ceased."  To  the  same  effect  says  Rothe  : 
"We  must  not  forget  that  the  main  point  in 
revelation  is  not  that  it  shall  produce  an  effect 
on  the  immediate  sphere  in  which  it  is  opera- 
tive, but  that  the  facts  in  which  it  consists  shall 
be  abidingly  present  for  man  in  his  intellectual 
horizon,  as  an  essential  datum  in  the  complex 
of  his  perceptions  and  experiences.  It  seeks 
to  introduce  certain  facts  as  elements  of  the 
human  world,  which  this  world  could  not  have 
produced  of  itself." 

It  may  therefore  be  said  tliat  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  see  how  the  revelation  could  have  ac- 


Revelation  95 

complished  its  ends  had  it  not  been  committed 
to  writing :  for,  first,  it  is  even  difficult  to  un- 
derstand how  the  revelation  could  have  been 
completed  without  the  aid  of  writing.  The 
revelation  was  historical,  extending  over  long 
periods  of  time.  "  One  generation  must  tell  to 
another  the  truths  revealed  and  the  redemptive 
deeds  accomplished  by  God."  The  prophets 
built  upon  the  antecedent  Law  and  on  the  pre- 
vious history  of  the  people.  The  New  Testa- 
ment writers  were  guided  and  aided  by  their 
knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament.  And  it  is 
not  apparent  that  in  any  other  way  than  by 
means  of  written  records  the  continuity  and  pro- 
gressiveness  of  the  revelation  could  have  been 
maintained.  As  Professor  Ladd  says :  "  Bib- 
lical revelation  is  not  spasmodic;  it  is  histori- 
cal. Memory  is  as  necessary  to  the  growth  of 
the  race  as  of  the  individual.  It  belongs  to 
the  very  idea  of  an  historical  revelation  that 
there  should  be  an  accumulated  store  of  Divine 
Communications . ' ' 

Again,  it  is  the  written  record  which  pre- 
serves incorrupt  and  propagates  through  all 
ages  and  all  tongues  the  knowledge  of  God  as 
Redeemer  which  He  has  communicated.  If 
any  one  wishes  to  know  what  God  is  in  His 
relation  to  man,  if  it  be  desired  to  know  what 


96        The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

Christianity  is,  or  Vhat  are  the  facts  on  which 
Christianity  is  based  and  the  doctrines  it  de- 
livers, or  if  it  be  in  dispute  what  men  ought  to 
believe,  it  is  to  the  Bible  appeal  must  be  made. 
And  therefore  the  Bible  may  itself  legitimately, 
if  loosely,  be  called  the  revelation. 
Summary.  Conclusion. — From  all  this,  then,  it  will  be 

gathered  that  God  has  revealed  Himself  espe- 
cially in  His  redemptive  energy,  that  we  see 
most  of  God  and  of  all  that  is  essential  to  His 
character  and  purposes  in  His  approaches  to  man 
and  education  of  man  in  order  to  restore  him  to 
Himself  and  to  free  him  absolutely  from  all 
evil.  In  the  Bible  we  have  the  written  history 
of  this  approach  of  God  to  man,  the  record  of 
His  revelation  of  His  gracious  and  saving  pur- 
poses and  work.  To  think  of  it  as  a  conven- 
ient collection  or  summary  of  doctrines,  a 
text-book  in  theological  knowledge,  is  entirely 
to  misconceive  it.  "If  we  get  out  of  it  a  system 
of  truth  as  to  God  and  His  relations  to  man,  we 
must  do  it  as  an  astronomer  gets  a  system  of 
astronomy  from  the  heavenly  bodies  "  (or  as  an 
embryologist  gathers  his  completed  information 
from  watching  the  natural  growth  of  the  em- 
bryo). God  has  revealed  Himself,  and  the  lead- 
ing facts  of  this  revelation  are  recorded  for  us 
in  the  Bible,  and  from  these  facts  we  can  gather 


Revelation  97 

what  God  wishes  us  to  know  about  Him  and 
how  He  wishes  us  to  think  of  Him.  But  the 
Bible  must  not  be  thought  of  as  "a  collection 
of  truths  formulated  in  propositions  which  God 
from  time  to  time  whispered  in  the  ear  to  be 
communicated  to  the  world  as  the  unchanging 
formulas  of  thought  and  life  for  all  time.''^ 

Here,  also,  we  get  the  idea  of  inspiration,  for 
this  revelation  of  God  can  only  be  understood 
and  appreciated  by  those  who  have  His  spirit 
—  inspired  men  must  be  there  to  receive  the 
revelation.  Inspiration  is  the  complement  of 
revelation  —  as  sight  is  the  complement  of  the 
external  world;  it  is  that  in  man  which  per- 
ceives, appreciates,  accepts,  and  in  certain  cases 
records  the  revelation  of  God.  There  may  be 
revelation  by  God  where  there  is  no  inspired 
man  to  observe  and  respond  to  it  as  there  are 
parts  of  the  external  world  the  eye  has  never 
seen.  But  the  essential  elements  in  revelation 
have  been  understood  and  interpreted  by  men. 
Much  revelation  has  been  made  which  there 
were  no  inspired  men  to  receive ;  and  much 
revelation  has  been  perceived  by  inspired  men 
which  has  not  been  recorded.  In  the  Bible  we 
have  that  selected  revelation  which  inspired 
men  have  accepted  and  seen  fit  to  record. 
1  Harris,  p.  458. 


IV 

INSPIRATION 


IV 

INSPIRATION 

Three  things,  then,  should  be  held  distinct  Revelation 

(i7id  zts 

in  our  minds :  God's  revelation  of  Himself,  record. 
human  apprehension  of  this  revelation,  and  the 
record  in  our  Bible  of  this  revelation  as  appre- 
hended. It  is  not  indeed  conceivable  that  such  _ 
a  revelation  of  God  as  was  made  in  Christ 
should  have  failed  to  find  appreciative  minds ; 
and,  as  during  a  long  period  of  the  world's  his- 
tory men  had  been  accustomed  to  put  in  writing 
what  had  impressed  them,  it  was  natural  that 
the  further  step  of  recording  a  recognized  reve- 
lation should  be  taken.  But  by  holding  these 
three  processes  distinct  in  our  mind  we  gain  a 
clearer  apprehension  of  the  nature  and  place  of 
the  Bible.  Prior  to  the  existence  of  the  Bible, 
God  manifested  Himself  savingly  to  men ;  but 
it  is  equally  true  that  it  is  through  the  Bible 
God  now  makes  Himself  and  His  redemption 
apprehensible  by  men.  God  revealed  Himself 
in  Christ  and  saved  the  world  in  Christ  before 
there  was  any  New  Testament ;  but  the  benefit 
101 


102      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


\y 


Inspiration. 


of  that  revelation  is  permanently  conveyed  to 
the  world  through  the  Gospels  and  the  epistles. 
Accordingly,  the  Scriptures  have  been  described 
/'  as  "  the  mode  by  which  God  as  He  is  in  Christ 
lives  for  the  faith  of  the  Church  and  before 
the  mind  of  the  world.  They  as  it  were  so 
impersonate,  immortalize,  and  universalize  the 
consciousness  of  Christ  that  it  can  exercise 
everywhere  and  always  its  creative  and  norma- 
tive functions."  Roughly,  therefore,  the  Bible 
is  called  the  revelation  of  God  because  it  brings 
before  us  in  a  written  record  what  God  has 
done  to  make  Himself  known,  and  what  God- 
inspired  men  have  seen  in  that  revelation  and 
have  thought  of  God.i  The  human  qualifica- 
tion for  understanding  and  recording  revelation 
requires  fuller  treatment.  It  is  called  Inspi- 
ration^ which  is  the  word  used  to  translate 
deoTTvevarCa.    This  quality  is  claimed  for  Scrip- 


1  Obviously,  this  involves  that  in  order  to  appreciate  and 
use  the  Bible  the  reader  of  it  must  himself  have  the  same 
spirit  which  enabled  its  writers  to  understand  the  revelation 
of  God  and  to  record  it.  The  Bible  is  a  record,  but  it  is  not 
a  dead  record  of  dead  persons  and  events,  but  a  record  in- 
spired by  the  living  Spirit  who  uses  it  to  speak  to  men  now. 
It  is  more  than  a  phonograph  which  has  mechanically  stored 
up  for  ages  the  words  and  tones  of  the  original  speaker.  It 
is  the  medium  through  which  the  living  God  now  makes 
Himself  heard  and  known.  But  to  find  in  it  the  Spirit  of 
God  the  reader  must  himself  have  that  Spirit. 


Inspiration  103 

ture  and  for  the  writers  of  it  :  (1)  On  the 
grounds  already  stated  that  the  presence  of 
the  Divine  Spirit  is  requisite  to  enable  a  man  to 
recognize  God's  revelation.  Spiritual  things 
are  spiritually  discerned.  Accordingly,  our 
Lord  promised  nothing  more  emphatically  and 
explicitly  than  the  coming  of  this  Spirit  of 
truth  that  His  people  might  recognize  what 
God  had  revealed  in  Him.  And  (2)  while  the 
writers  of  Scripture  do  not  individually  claim 
this  inspiration,  but  rest  their  claims  to  cre- 
dence rather  upon  other  qualifications,  yet  in 
the  New  Testament  inspiration  is  claimed  for 
the  Old.  In  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  however  we 
construe  the  words,  inspiration  is  claimed  for 
Scripture ;  and  in  2  Pet.  i.  21  we  have  the 
statement  that  prophecy  was  not  the  product  of 
human  will,  but  men  from  God  spake  being 
carried  Q^epofievoi)  or  borne  along  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Paul,  too,  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  37,  says,  "  If 
any  man  thinks  he  is  a  prophet  or  spiritual,  let 
him  acknowledge  that  what  I  write  is  of  the 
Lord."  And  when  in  another  part  of  the  same 
epistle  (vii.  40)  he  says,  "  I  think  (hoKSy)  that 
I  have  the  spirit  of  God,"  the  modesty  of  the 
claim  only  gives  us  additional  certification  of 
its  truth.  And  if  other  writers  whose  books 
appear  in  Scripture  make  no  such  claim,  this 


104      The  Bible :  Its  Origin  and  Nature 


Various 
definitions. 


A  priori 
co7iception 
inadmis- 
sible. 


by  no  means  involves  that  they  did  not  possess 
inspiration. 

But  when  we  attempt  to  advance  from  the 
simple  affirmation  that  Scripture  is  inspired  to 
the  inquiry,  What  is  inspiration?  we  find  our- 
selves beset  with  various  contradictory  opin- 
ions. Every  gradation  of  opinion  has  found 
advocates  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest ; 
from  the  idea  that  the  writers  of  Scripture 
were  inspired  in  the  same  sense  as  Milton  or 
Bunyan  or  Beethoven  was  inspired,  to  the  be- 
lief that  inspiration  means  that  every  word  in 
the  Bible  is  as  fully  the  word  of  God  as  if  no 
human  instrumentality  had  intervened. 

Much  injustice  has  been  done  to  the  Bible, 
and  much  harm  has  resulted  to  faith,  by  allow- 
ing a  priori  conceptions  of  inspiration  and  its 
effects  to  rule.  It  has  been  argued  that  if  God 
is  pleased  to  make  known  His  will  to  men,  this 
revelation  must  be  accomplished  in  such  and 
such  a  manner.  It  will  be  clear  and  unambig- 
uous in  meaning ;  it  will  be  unadulterated  by 
any  alloy  of  human  error,  and  so  forth.  Thus 
it  was  argued  that  the  Hebrew  vowel-points 
must  have  been  inspired,  for  otherwise  the 
reading  would  have  been  uncertain,  and  God 
could  not  leave  uncertainty  in  His  word. 
Similarly,  it  was  argued  that  God  could  allow 


Inspiration  105 

no  grammatical  errors,  no  barbarous  construc- 
tions, no  faultiness  of  style  in  His  word.  Tex- 
tual criticism  was  frowned  upon  because  it  was 
supposed  that  God  could  not  leave  His  word  to 
the  mercy  of  the  ordinary  accidents  affecting 
secular  literature.  All  these  preconceptions 
have  been  found  to  be  erroneous  and  have  lent 
emphasis  to  the  warning  pronounced  by  Bishop 
Butler  :  "  We  are  in  no  sense  judges  beforehand 
by  what  methods  and  in  what  proportion  it 
were  to  be  expected  that  this  supernatural 
light  and  instruction  should  be  afforded  us. 
The  only  question  concerning  the  authority  of 
Scripture  is  whether  it  be  what  it  claims  to  be, 
not  whether  it  be  a  book  of  such  sort  and  so 
promulgated  as  weak  men  are  apt  to  fancy  a 
book  containing  a  Divine  revelation  should  be. 
And  therefore  neither  obscurity,  nor  seeming 
inaccuracy  of  style,  nor  various  readings,  nor 
early  disputes  about  the  authors,  nor  any  other 
things  of  the  like  kind,  though  they  had  been 
much  more  considerable  than  they  are,  could 
overthrow  the  authority  of  Scripture,  unless 
the  prophets,  apostles,  or  our  Lord  had  prom- 
ised that  the  Book  containing  the  Divine  reve- 
lation should  be  secure  from  these  things."  inspiration 

It  is,  then,  only  from  the  Bible  itself  we  can  '?  ^^  learned 
•'  from  Bible 

learn  what  an  inspired  book  is.     We  may  find  itself. 


106      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

many  unexpected  peculiarities  in  the  Bible,  but 
these  will  not  dismay  us,  if  we  have  not  gone 

/  to  it  with  a  preconceived  theory  of  what  it 
ought  to  be  and  of  what  inspiration  must  ac- 
complish. The  Bible  must  not  be  forced  into 
conformity  with  our  Procrustean  theory  of  in- 
spiration ;  but  we  must  allow  our  tlieory  to  be 

\  formed  by  the  Bible.  If  we  should  find  on 
"examination  that  much  of  what  is  human  enters 
into  the  Bible,  we  must  expand  our  theory  to 
include  this.  If  we  should  find  discrepancies 
or  inaccuracies,  these  must  help  us  to  our  true 
theory. 

In  Professor  Bowne's  small  but  excellent  book 

j  on  the  "  Christian  Revelation,"  he  very  truly 
says  :  "  The  presence  of  inspiration  is  dis- 
cernible in  the  product,  but  the  meaning  and 
measure  of  inspiration  cannot  be  decided  by 
abstract  reflection,  but  only  by  the  outcome. 
What  inspiration  is,  must  be  learned  from  what 
it  does.  We  must  not  determine  the  character 
of  the  books  from  the  inspiration,  but  must 
rather  determine  the  nature  of  the  inspiration 
from  the  books"  (pp.  44-45). 

The  problem  in  regard  to  inspiration  is,  to 
adjust  truly  the  Divine  and  the  human  factors. 
The  various  theories  which  have  been  framed 
and  held  differ  from  one  another  regarding  the 


Inspiration  107 

proportion  which  the  human  element  in  the 
process  and  in  the  result  bears  to  the  Divine. 
According  as  greater  or  less  predominance  is 
ascribed  to  the  Divine  influence  we  have  the 
following  theories  :  — 

1.  That  which  has  been  known  as  the  me-  Mechanical 
chanical  or  dictation  theory.  It  is  the  theory  of  ^'^^^^y' 
complete  possession,  in  which  the  Divine  factor 
is  at  its  maximum,  the  human  at  its  minimum. 
What  is  human  is  suppressed;  the  indwelling 
God  uses  the  human  organs  irrespective  of  the 
human  will.  The  man  is  the  mere  mouthpiece 
of  the  god,  uttering  words  he  need  not  know 
the  meaning  of,  thoughts  which  no  free  process 
of  his  own  faculties  has  reached.  He  is  the 
organ  of  a  mind  and  will  not  his  own. 

This  view  has  always  been  popular  outside  This  a 
of  Christianity.  Among  heathen  people  the  theory!' 
very  sign  of  a  man's  being  possessed  by  a  god 
is  that  he  loses  self-control.  Paul's  rule  that 
the  spirit  of  the  prophet  is  subject  to  the 
prophet  was  incomprehensible  to  them.  The 
less  command  the  prophet  had  over  himself 
the  more  surely  was  he  inspired.  Accordingly, 
this  state  of  frenzy  was  artificially  produced  by 
inhaling  fumes  or  by  violent  dancings  and  con- 
tortions, such  as  are  still  practised  in  Africa 
and  the  East.     Similarly,  persons  in  a  state  of 


108      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

trance  can  see  what  is  invisible  to  them  when 
in  possession  of  their  faculties,  and  dreams  are 
supposed  to  be  intimations  of  the  Divine  will. 
This  view  of  inspiration  is  announced  not  only 
as  the  superstition  of  the  heathen  populace, 
but  by  their  authoritative  exponents  of  belief. 
Plato,  for  example,  in  the  "  Timseus  "  (71)  says, 
"  God  has  given  the  art  of  divination,  not  to 
the  wisdom,  but  to  the  foolishness  of  man.  No 
man,  when  in  his  wits,  attains  prophetic  truth 
and  inspiration ;  but  when  he  receives  the  in- 
spired word,  either  his  intelligence  is  enthralled 
in  sleep,  or  he  is  demented  by  some  distemper 
or  possession."  And  in  the  "Phsedrus"  (244) 
he  gives  an  account  of  four  forms  of  madness,  — 
prophecy,  inspiration,  poetry,  love,  and  shows 
that  the  self-possessed  man  cannot  be  the  sub- 
ject of  these  inspirations. 

€K(f>pcov  was  the  word  commonly  used  to  ex- 
press the  human  side  of  the  condition  most 
receptive  of  Divine  communications.  Thus 
in  Plato's  "  Ion,"  534,  occurs  the  expression 
ev^eo?  re  kuI  €K(})pa)v,  and  in  Plutarch's  "  Themis- 
tocles,"  c.  XXVI.,  2,  a  certain  tutor  Olbios 
suddenly  becomes  inspired,  eK(f)p(ov  ryev6/xevo<;  koI 
6eo4>6pr]To<;.  In  the  sixth  "-^neid  "  Virgil  rep- 
resents the  priestess  as  striving  to  shake  off  the 
god  and  struggling  against  his  influence  till  she 
is  gradually  subdued. 


Inspiration  109 

This  theory,  then,  proceeds  upon  the  idea  Human 
that  the  less  the  ordinary  human  faculties  are  pressed.*"^' 
in  operation,  the  fuller  is  the  Divine  inspira- 
tion. It  is  supposed  that  God  finds  freer  ex- 
pression for  Himself,  not  through  the  fuller 
exercise  of  the  human  mind  and  spirit,  but 
through  their  suppression.  Hence  the  relation 
of  the  inspiring  God  to  the  inspired  man  was 
often  pictured  by  that  of  a  player  to  the  lyre 
or  harp  on  which  he  played,  or  of  a  writer  to 
the  pen  with  which  he  wrote.  The  man  was 
a  mechanical  instrument,  and  into  the  work 
accomplished  his  own  thought,  feeling,  and  will 
did  not  enter.  The  result  was  purely  Divine; 
every  word  uttered  was  the  word  of  God. 

Only  in  some  disguised  form  can  this  theory  Popularity 
now  be  held,  although  certainly  it  was  common  %^qII 
until  quite  recently,  and  it  has  whatever  pres- 
tige antiquity  can  give  it.  Some  of  the  fathers, 
especially  Athenagoras,  used  the  figure  of  the 
lyre  and  the  plectrum  in  a  manner  which  at 
least  lays  them  open  to  the  suspicion  of  holding 
this  mechanical  theory.  Athenagoras,  speak- 
ing of  the  prophets,  says,  that  "  while  entranced 
and  deprived  of  their  natural  powers  of  reason 
by  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  they 
uttered  that  which  was  wrought  in  them,  the 
spirit  using  them  as  its  instruments,  as  a  flute- 


110      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Jewish  be- 
lief. 


Outco7ne  of 
this  theory. 


player  might  blow  a  flute."  Philo,  with  all 
his  intelligence  and  knowledge,  believed  that 
inspiration  was  a  kind  of  ecstasy,  and  that 
inspired  men  were  mere  voices  uttering  not 
what  they  had  themselves  felt  and  thought, 
but  God's  words. ^ 

Hence  to  the  Jews  every  word  and  letter  of 
the  Scriptures  was  sacred.  When  Moses  went 
up  into  the  Mount  he  found  Jehovah  making 
the  ornamental  letters  in  the  book  of  the  Law. 
Accordingly,  they  numbered  the  words  and  the 
letters  of  ever}^  book,  and  found  a  mystery  full 
of  significance  in  the  most  external  and  casual 
features  of  the  sacred  book. 

In  the  second  century,  Montanism  gave  an 
impulse  to  this  mechanical  view  and  was  ex- 
plicitly opposed  by  INIiltiades  in  a  treatise 
entitled  irepl  rov  firj  Selv  TrpocprJTrjv  iv  eKcrrda-ei 
\a\elv^  i.e.  That  the  prophet  ought  not  to  sp>eak 
in  ecstasy.  But  the  hold  which  this  theory 
took  even  upon  Christendom  is  perhaps  best 


1  Philo  ("  Quis  Rer.  Div.  Haeres,"  c.  53,  p.  511,  Mangey, 
Vol.  I. )  says  that  so  long  as  we  are  masters  of  ourselves,  we 
are  not  possessed  by  any  extraneous  influence  ;  but  when 
our  own  mind  ceases  to  shine,  inspiration  and  madness  lay 
hold  of  us.  "For  the  understanding  that  dwells  in  us  is 
ousted  on  the  arrival  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  but  is  restored  to 
its  own  dwelling  when  that  Spirit  departs,  for  it  is  unlawful 
that  mortal  dwell  with  immortal." 


Inspiration  111 

illustrated  by  the  fact  that  it  found  expression 
in  the  post-reformation  "  Formula  Consensus 
Helvetici,"  in  which  occurs  this  clause :  Hebra- 
icus  V.  T.  codex,  tum  quoad  consonas,  tum 
quoad  vocalia,  sive  puncta  ipsa,  seu  punctorum 
saltern  potestatem,  et  tum  quoad  res,  tum  quoad 
verba  OeoTrvevaro'i. 

A  theory  of  which  this  is  the  legitimate  logi-  This  theory 
cal  outcome  does  not  cover  the  facts  of  Scrip-  ^''^*«"«^^«- 
ture,  and  therefore  becomes  untenable.  The 
account  which  Luke  gives  us  of  his  preparation 
for  writing  his  Gospel  shows  that  he  was  not  a 
mere  mouthpiece  of  another's  thoughts.  If 
the  penitential  wailings  and  joyful  thanksgiv- 
ings and  ascriptions  of  praise  which  we  find  in 
the  Psalms  are  not  the  fruit  of  human  sorrow 
and  of  human  thought  and  experience,  they  at 
once  become  vapid  and  false.  It  is  inconceiv- 
able, and  contrary  to  all  we  know  of  the  man- 
ner of  God's  working,  that  He  should  have 
used  men  in  this  merely  mechanical  way. 

And  the  supposed  result  of  this  supposed  its  supposed 
process  is  as  incongruous  with  God's  usual 
methods.  The  supposed  result  is  a  Bible  in 
which  every  word  is  as  truly  the  word  of  God 
as  if  He  spoke  it  directly  to  ourselves  apart 
from  all  human  intervention.  There  cannot  be 
the  faintest  infusion  of  error.     Every  histori- 


112      The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

cal,  scientific,  or  chronological  statement  is  ex- 
actly true.  It  is,  however,  needless  to  follow 
this  theory  into  all  its  difficulties  and  incon- 
sistencies. It  makes  demands  that  cainiot  be 
satisfied.  It  requires  that  we  have  a  Bible  of 
which  we  are  sure  that  each  book  is  divinely 
inspired  in  this  absolutely  inerrant  sense;  that 
no  book  has  been  admitted  which  is  not  thus 
authorized.  It  demands,  also,  that  we  have  a 
solution  for  all  discrepancies  in  the  several 
books.  If  such  a  Bible  was  necessary,  then 
steps  would  have  been  taken  to  secure  it  to 
us.  But  in  point  of  fact  we  have  a  Bible 
which  we  know  does  not  in  every  particular 
tally  with  that  which  at  first  was  received. 
Manuscripts  have  been  corrupted,  translations 
are  inexact;  but  it  is  with  these  that  the 
Christian  people  have  practically  to  do.  So 
that  the  result  of  this  theory  of  infallibility  is 
not,  after  all,  to  put  in  our  hands  an  infallible 
Bible,  but  actually  to  rob  us  of  it.  It  is  only 
the  original  autographs  which  can  claim  such 
an  infallibility;  and  these  are  forever  beyond 
our  reach.  Had  verbal  accuracy  been  required 
for  our  saving  use  of  the  Bible,  it  would  have 
been  secured.  It  has  not  been  secured,  there- 
fore it  was  not  required. 

If  it  were  requisite  that  we  should  know  the 


Inspiration  113 

very  words  originally  written,  then  were  we  Divergence 
hopelessly  shut  out  from  the  benefit  of  God's 
word.  For  the  text  used  by  the  Jews  of  the 
centuries  immediately  preceding  the  Christian 
era  is  not  the  Hebrew  text  we  now  use.  The 
text  they  used  can  be  discovered  from  the 
LXX 1 ;  but  the  LXX  is,  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent, different  from  our  Bible.  Not  only  are 
incidents  in  the  life  of  David  which  we  read 
in  our  text  omitted  from  the  LXX,  but  in  a 
prophet  so  important  as  Jeremiah  about  one- 
eighth  of  what  we  find  in  the  Hebrew  is 
omitted  from  the  Greek,  while  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  material  widely  differs.  Who  can 
tell  us  which  of  these  texts,  the  Hebrew  we 
now  use  or  the  Hebrew  used  by  the  LXX,  is 
nearer  the  original?  No  one  can  certainly 
say. 

There  are  two  facts  of  Scripture  which 
are  incompatible  with  the  theory  of  verbal 
inspiration. 

(1)  The  first  of  these  is  the  manner  in  which  Quotations 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are  made  tament  in 
in    the   New.     Of   such   quotations   there   are  '^^  -^^"'• 
275.2 

1  That  is,  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment into  Greek. 

2  See  Toy's  "  Quotations  from  Old  Testament," 


114      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

Of  these  there  are  only  53  in  which  the 
Hebrew,  the  LXX,  and  the  New  Testament 
agree;  that  is,  in  which  the  LXX  has 
correctly  rendered  the  Hebrew  and  been 
correctly  quoted  by  the  New  Testament 
writer 53 

There  are  10  interesting  passages  in  which  the 
LXX  has  been  corrected  and  brought  into 
harmony  with  the  Hebrew      .         .  »     10 

There  are  37  passages  in  which  the  faulty  ren- 
dering of  the  LXX  has  been  accepted  in  the 
New  Testament  quotation      .         .         .37 

There  are  76  passages  in  which  the  correct 
version  of  the  LXX  has  been  altered  into 
a  rendering  which  does  not  agree  with  the 
original  ......     76 

And  there  are  99  passages  in  which  the  New 
Testament  quotation  differs  both  from  the 
Hebrew  and  from  the  LXX  .         .     99 

Now,  on  any  explanation  of  this  style  of 
quoting,  it  would  certainly  seem  as  if  the  New 
Testament  writers  thought  much  more  of  the 
sense  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  than  of  the  lan- 
guage. No  doubt  the  language  may  in  some 
cases  be  so  involved  with  the  thought  that 
regard  must  be  had  to  the  actual  wording  of 
the  utterance.     A  case  in  point  is  the  argu- 


Inspiration  115 

ment  founded  by  Paul  on  the  use  of  a  singular 
instead  of  a  plural.  But  commonly  one  form 
of  words  may  express  a  thought  almost  as  ade- 
quately as  another ;  and  as  the  above  statistics 
prove,  the  New  Testament  writers  set  no  spe- 
cial store  by  the  exact  words  in  which  the  Old 
Testament  writers  expressed  themselves. 

It  may  be  fancied  that  if  this  is  the  practice 
of  the  New  Testament  writers,  it  runs  counter 
to  the  explicit  affirmation  of  Christ  that  not  a 
jot  or  tittle  of  the  law  should  pass  away  till  all 
be  fulfilled.  But  it  is  only  by  reckless  careless- 
ness that  these  words  can  be  applied  to  the 
words  of  Scripture  at  all.  What  our  Lord 
means  is,  as  the  context  shows,  that  nothing 
which  God  has  ordained  in  the  law  or  promised 
in  the  prophets  shall  pass  away  till  it  has  been 
fulfilled  in  Him.  Immediately  upon  saying 
this  He  proceeds  to  repeal  commandments  of 
the  law,  substituting  for  them  commandments 
of  His  own,  showing  that  what  He  has  in  view 
is  not  Scripture  as  Scripture,  and  that  the  ful- 
filment He  thinks  of  is  absorption  in  Himself. 

(2)  The  second  fact  of  Scripture  which  ap-  Report  of 
pears  to  be  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  ver-  ^^^^^^^'jo'/ 
bal  inspiration  is  the  fact  that  those  who  record  literally 
the  sayings  of  our  Lord  greatly  differ  in  tfeeir 
reports.     One  would  expect  that  here,  if  r  any- 


116      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Paul  not  an 
advocate  of 
verbal 
inspiration. 


where,  sacredness  would  attach  to  the  very 
letter  and  precise  language  used.  But  it  is 
not  so.  Even  in  reporting  the  Lord's  Prayer 
the  evangelists  differ;  and  in  His  ordinary 
sayings  and  conversations  we  congratulate 
ourselves  if  the  sense  is  the  same  in  the 
different  Gospels  and  scarcely  expect  to  find 
absolute  identity  of  language.  But  if  inspi- 
ration involved  perfect  accuracy  of  language, 
no  such  phenomena  as  the  Gospels  present 
would  appear. 

There  is  indeed  a  statement  made  by  Paul 
which  to  the  superficial  reader  might  seem  to 
indicate  that  he  believed  himself  to  be  taught 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  the  very  words  in  which  he 
was  to  declare  Christian  truth.  In  1  Cor. 
ii.,  speaking  of  the  things  God  had  revealed 
through  His  Spirit,  he  says,  "  Which  things 
also  we  speak  not  in  the  words  which  man's 
wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
teacheth."  But  Paul's  intention  is  to  contrast 
two  methods  of  teaching,  two  styles  of  lan- 
guage, —  the  worldly  and  the  spiritual,  —  and  to 
affirm  that  the  style  he  adopts  was  that  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  taught  him.  He  meant  to 
justify  his  use  of  a  certain  hind  of  language 
and  a  certain  style  of  teaching.  The  Spirit  of 
the  world   adopts  one  method  of   insinuating 


Inspiration  117 

knowledge  into  the  mind;  the  Spirit  of  God 
uses  another  method. 

The  idea  of  verbal  inspiration  has  arisen  Verbal 
from  the  notion  that  the  Spirit  of  God  inserts  hased  on 
or  puts  into  the  mind  of  the  inspired  man  a  ^^™''' 
truth,  as  it  were  ready-made,  and  not  in  any- 
necessary  connection  with  the  previous  con- 
tents of  the  inspired  mind  or  its  normal  ac- 
tion. In  this  case,  no  doubt,  the  thought  would 
naturally  be  given  in  a  definite  form  of  words. 
But  everything  in  the  Bible  discourages  this 
idea.  The  impact  of  the  Spirit's  influence  oc- 
curs at  a  point  more  remote  from  the  result 
than  verbal  inspiration  presumes.  It  is  the 
man  who  is  inspired.  It  is  not  that  one  in- 
spired thought  is  magically  communicated  to 
him  in  the  form  in  which  he  is  to  declare  it  to 
his  fellows.  But  the  man  himself  is  inspired, 
so  that  he  with  all  his  natural  powers  and  idio- 
syncrasies becomes  the  organ  of  the  Spirit.  The 
elevating,  refining,  spiritual  influence  of  inspi- 
ration may  be  compared  in  its  mode  of  action  to 
the  influence  of  some  new  passion,  say,  maternal 
love,  in  the  subject  of  it.  It  seizes  upon  the 
whole  person  and  uses  all  the  faculties  for 
its  purposes.  Inspiration,  therefore,  does  not 
lift  the  inspired  person  out  of  all  his  limita- 
tions, but  uses  him  as  he  is,  and  all  his  facul- 


118     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

ties  as  they  are  for  the  fulfilment  of  a  Divine 
purpose. 
Modifica-  2.  Abandoning,  then,  this  theory  of  possession 

tions  of  the  ^  ^  ^  n      i  -I         ^•     {•    c 

mechanical    ^^  untenable,  we  find  a  proposed  reliei  from  its 
theory.  inconsistencies  in    the  theory  that   the  Divine 

energy  did  not  annihilate  the  human  coopera- 
tion. The  Divine  influence  was  dominant,  but 
not  overpowering.  Modifications  of  the  theory 
of  possession  are  probably  due  to  the  Jewish 
Rabbis.  They  differentiated  the  Law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Kethubim.  For  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Kethubim,  or  Hagiographa, 
they  considered  that  only  a  small  degree  of 
inspiration  was  needed,  a  higher  degree  for 
the  prophetic  writings  and  the  highest  for  the 
Law.  The  schoolmen  followed  them  and  some 
distinguish  four  degrees  of  influence:  superin- 
tendence^ which  saved  from  positive  error ;  eleva- 
tion, which  imparted  loftiness  to  the  thought ; 
direction,  which  prompted  the  writer  what  to 
insert  and  what  to  omit ;  and  suggestion,  which 
inspired  both  thoughts  and  words. ^  Without 
definitely  holding  these  various  degrees  or 
modes  of  the  Divine  influence,  many  have 
thought  that  difliculties  would  be  escaped  and 
the  accuracy  of   Scripture  sufficiently  guaran- 

1  See  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  art.  "Inspiration  "  ;  also,  Far- 
rar's  art.  on  "  Inspiration"  iu  Theological  Educator. 


Inspiration  119 

teed  if  it  were  held  that  God  inspired  the 
thoughts  but  not  the  words ;  that  the  truths 
are  communicated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the 
form,  the  words  and  phrases  in  which  they  are 
delivered,  are  due  to  the  writer's  own  individ- 
uality. Plutarch  has  an  interesting  paper  on 
the  Pythian  responses  in  which  the  question  is 
discussed,  why  the  oracles  are  not  always  given 
in  perfect  form  if  they  are  Divine.  And  his 
answer  is  twofold :  (1)  that  the  Pythia  is  not 
less  the  organ  of  the  god  because  she  does  not 
clothe  herself  in  purple  robes  and  sprinkle  her- 
self with  perfumes  when  she  goes  down  into 
the  cave  ;  the  Passionless  and  the  Pure  does 
not  accord  with  what  is  pleasant  to  the  senses  ; 
and  (2)  that  while  the  god  supplies  the  inspi- 
ration, the  verses  in  which  the  will  of  the  god 
is  uttered  are  the  productions  of  each  of  the 
prophetesses  in  turn.  "  If  she  were  obliged  to 
write  down,  and  not  to  utter,  the  responses,  we 
should  not,  I  suppose,  believe  the  hand-writing 
to  be  the  god's,  and  to  find  fault  with  it,  because 
it  is  inferior  in  point  of  caligraphy  to  the  im- 
perial rescripts  ;  for  neither  is  the  old  woman's 
voice,  nor  her  diction,  nor  her  metre  the  god's  ; 
but  it  is  the  god  alone  who  presents  the  visions 
to  this  woman  and  kindles  light  in  her  soul  re- 
garding the  future ;  for  this  is  the  inspiration." 


120      The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

TJie  dy-  This  theory  is  known  as  the  dynamic,  and 

Iheon.  ^^y  roughly  be  said  to  embrace  all  theories 

which  hold  that  the  truths  uttered  in  Scripture 
are  Divine,  while  the  imperfections  and  weak- 
nesses are  human.  Classical  expression  is  given 
to  this  theory  in  the  words  of  Augustine,  who 
says  that  the  writer  is  "inspiratus  a  Deo,  sed 
tamen  homo."  But  not  to  mention  that  such  a 
severance  of  the  Divine  and  human  in  inspira- 
tion is  impossible,  this  theory  has  been  found 
to  introduce  confusion  into  the  subject. 
Roman  To  illustrate  the  working  of  this  theory,  let 

theory.  ^s  take  the  statement  of  it  by  a  Roman  Catho- 

lic authority.  1  "  The  only  proper  monotheistic 
idea  of  inspiration  is  that  an  All-wise  and  Al- 
mighty God  chose  and  moved  His  instruments 
so  that  their  action  exactly  corresponded  to  His 
will,  and  did  not  try  to  play  lyre-music  on  flutes 
and  harp-music  on  trumpets.  Further,  that 
He  used  them  as  men  preserving  their  human 
faculties,  and  that  they  knew  and  understood 
what  they  were  saying  and  had  said,  though 
they  need  not,  therefore,  have  known  all  the 
ultimate  deductions  from  it,  any  more  than  a 
teacher  of  arithmetic  need  know  the  differential 
calculus."  This  explanation  promises  well;  but 
when  this  same  writer  goes  on  to  declare  that 
1  Tablet,  May  6,  1894. 


Inspiration  121 

the  words  are  the  words  of  God,  and  that  there- 
fore all  error  is  excluded,  we  see  that  this  theory 
with  all  its  professions  is  as  mechanical  as  the 
dictation  or  possession  theory.  The  papal  en- 
cyclical on  the  subject,  issued  by  Pope  Leo 
XIII.,  declares  that  "those  who  maintain  that 
an  error  is  possible  in  any  genuine  passage  of 
the  sacred  writings  pervert  the  Catholic  notion 
of  inspiration,  and  make  God  the  Author  of  such 
error."  This  theory  does  not  satisfy  the  facts 
of  Scripture,  and  must  therefore  be  pronounced 
incompetent. 

The  only  form  in  which  the  dynamic  theory  The "  esseii- 
can  be  admitted  is  that  which  has  sometimes 
been  called  the  "essential"  theory  ;  that  is,  the 
theory  that  holds  that  the  writers  were  so  in- 
spired as  to  secure  accuracy  in  all  matters  of 
conduct  and  doctrine,  while  it  declines  to  pledge 
itself  to  the  perfect  accuracy  of  the  writers  in 
non-essentials,  or  subsidiary  particulars.  This 
theory  was  held  by  Erasmus,  Grotius,  Baxter, 
Paley,  DoUinger,  and  the  great  mass  of  German 
theologians.  It  recognizes  that  God  had  a  pur- 
pose to  accomplish  by  the  Scriptures,  and  that 
only  such  inspiration  was  required  as  is  suffi- 
cient for  the  attainment  of  this  purpose.  Men 
were  employed  as  instruments  in  carrying  out 
this  purpose,  but  they  were  so  employed  that 


ory. 


quacy. 


122      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

it  was  with  their  own  free  will,  and  using  such 
means  and  material  as  they  had,  that  they  ful- 
filled God's  purpose.  His  purpose  was  laid  on 
human  lines  and  was  accomplished  through  the 
free  working  of  human  instruments. 
Its  inade-  Those  who  hold  this  theory  view  with  per- 

fect equanimity  the  investigations  of  criticism. 
If  errors  in  history  or  science  be  discovered,  or 
if  discrepancies  in  the  Gospels  be  pointed  out, 
they  say  with  Coleridge,  "  Perhaps  they  can  be 
explained,  perhaps  they  cannot,  who  cares  a 
straw  whether  they  can  or  no  ? "  But  while 
this  theory  is  to  be  commended  for  its  candor 
in  endeavoring  to  recognize  the  facts  of  Scrip- 
ture and  to  account  for  them,  it  cannot  claim  to 
bring  us  much  nearer  any  understanding  of 
inspiration  itself.  It  does  not  explain,  or  even 
attempt  to  explain,  how  writers  should  be  pos- 
sessed of  supernatural  knowledge  while  inditing 
one  sentence  and  be  dropped  to  a  much  lower 
level  in  the  next.  It  does  not  give  us  the  psy- 
chology of  that  state  of  mind  which  can  infalli- 
bly pronounce  on  matters  of  doctrine,  while  it 
is  all  astray  on  the  simpler  facts  of  history.  It 
makes  no  attempt  to  analyze  the  relation  sub- 
sisting between  the  Divine  mind  and  the  human, 
which  produces  such  results.  In  short,  it  is 
rather  a  statement  of  the  facts  which  Scripture 


Inspiration  123 

presents  than  a  theory  accounting  for  the  facts. 
It  declares  that  Scripture  is  an  infallible  au- 
thority in  essentials,  but  in  non-essentials  merely 
human  ;  but  how  we  are  to  distinguish  between 
these  two  elements  in  Scripture,  or  how  we  are 
to  think  of  the  state  of  mind  of  the  writers,  it 
does  not  explain. 

We  are  left,  then,  without  any  sufficient  theory,    What  it  is 
and  we  are  often  told  that  if  not  impossible,  it  ^affirm  re- 

is  at  least  not  safe,  to  define  inspiration  or  form  ffarding 

inspiration. 

a  theory  on  so  obscure  a  subject. ^  But  without 
professing  to  define  inspiration  it  seems  safe  to 
affirm  one  or  two  elements  which  enter  into  it, 
and  must  be  included  in  any  definition. 

1.    The  first  affirmation  which  may  safely  be   Timtit 

J  T  •         -J.'  •      J.^     •    ••       •       -n         implies  per- 

made  regarding  inspiration  is  that  it  signifies  ceptionof 
the  presence  and  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  revelation. 
The  Spirit  of  God  may  truly  be  said  to  be 
present  and  energetic  everywhere.  But  the 
same  result  of  His  presence  is  not  everywhere 
apparent.  Infinitely  various  are  human  life  and 
human  need  ;  infinitely  various  also  is  the  work 

1  Professor  Wood  proposes,  as  a  tentative  definition,  the 
following  :  "  Biblical  inspiration  is  the  personal  influence  of 
God  which  so  guided  all  who  took  part  in  producing  the 
Bible  that  they  made  a  body  of  literature  unique  in  religious 
value,  and,  so  far  as  we  now  see,  final  in  religious  teach- 
ing." (See  "A  Tenable  Theory  of  Inspiration,"  a  lecture 
which  cannot  be  too  strongly  recommended.) 


124      The  Bible :  Its  Origin  and  Nature 

of  the  Divine  Spirit.  Under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment inspiration  was  claimed  for  those  who,  like 
Bezaleel  and  Samson,  by  extraordinary  powers 
fulfilled  in  one  direction  or  another  the  will  of 
God  for  His  people.  The  writers  of  Scripture 
are  designated  "  inspired,"  not  as  if  they  alone 
possessed  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  because  in 
them  that  spirit  is  working  as  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  toward  this  special  end  of  perceiving 
God  in  Christ  and  making  Him  permanentl}^ 
known.  All  Christians  possess  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  and  are,  by  Him,  being  led  into  a  full 
knowledge  of  the  truth  that  is  in  Christ,  to  a 
full  perception  of  that  whole  revelation  of  God 
which  is  made  in  Christ ;  and  when  some  of 
their  number  are  characterized  as  "inspired," 
this  means  that  these  persons  are  distinguished 
above  their  fellow-Christians  by  a  special  readi- 
ness and  capacity  to  perceive  the  meaning  of 
Christ  as  the  revelation  of  God  and  to  make 
known  what  they  see.^ 

1  ' '  Inspiration  is  a  personal  term.  It  means  the  breath- 
ing in  by  one  person  of  a  power  from  another.  It  is, 
broadly  speaking,  another  term  for  personal  influence,  and 
is  usually  kept  for  its  higher,  more  uplifting  phases.  .  .  . 
Divine  inspiration  is  the  influence  of  the  Divine  person  upon 
the  human  —  of  God  upon  man.  .  .  .  Biblical  inspiration 
is  a  species  of  inspiration  in  general.  It  is  the  influence  of 
God  which  resulted  in  the  production  of  the  Bible."  (Pro- 
fessor Wood's  "Tenable  Theory,"  pp.  9,  10,  16.) 


Inspiration  125 

2.  Inspiration  stands  in  a  vital  relation  to  That  it  im- 
character.  The  Spirit  of  truth,  promised  to  ness. 
the  disciples,  was  the  Spirit  of  holiness.  It 
was  those  who  were  most  in  sympathy  with 
the  purposes  of  God,  and  who  were  most  im- 
bued with  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  who  were  best 
prepared  to  see  and  recount  His  revelations. 
The  man  who  gave  himself  up  to  God,  and  who 
was  emptied  of  self-seeking  and  of  worldly 
ways  of  looking  at  things,  was  best  fitted  to 
understand  what  God  sought  to  disclose  to 
men.  Such  a  man  became  the  purest  possible 
medium  of  the  Spirit.  What  he  sees,  he  sees 
clearly  and  truly,  having  no  interest  to  see  any- 
thing different  from  what  God  actually  makes 
known.  And  what  he  sees,  he  utters  authori- 
tatively, knowing  that  it  is  not  his  own  will, 
but  the  will  of  God  he  is  declaring.  The  in- 
spired man  might  not  see  the  facts  of  history 
any  more  clearly  than  the  uninspired ;  but  he 
saw  God  in  history  where  the  uninspired  only 
saw  human  passions. 

Inspiration,  then,  is  primarily  a  spiritual  gift  it  is  prima- 
and  only  secondarily  a  mental  one.     Its  influ-  Huatgift'' 
ence  on  the  mental  movements  of  its  subject, 
although  indirect,  is  not  slight.     It  illuminates 
the  mind  as  enthusiasm  does,  by  stimulating 
and  elevating  it ;    it  enriches  the  memory  as 


126      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

love  does,  by  intensifying  the  interest  in  a  cer- 
tain object,  and  by  making  the  mind  sensitive 
to  its  impressions  and  retentive  of  them.  It 
brings  light  to  the  understanding  and  wisdom 
to  the  spirit,  as  purity  of  intention  does,  or  as  a 
high  aim  in  life  does.  Occasionally,  as  in  the 
case  of  Paul,  it  seizes  upon  a  man  of  the  largest 
natural  intellect  and  of  rich  attainment.  But 
so  far  as  we  can  gather  from  the  Bible,  inspira- 
tion does  not  confer  intellectual  acuteness  where 
that  did  not  previously  exist,  nor  does  it  impart 
superhuman  power  of  knowing  what  ordinary 
inquiry  can  ascertain.  Luke,  for  example,  was 
not  exempted  from  the  necessity  of  making 
inquiries,  and,  if  in  some  points  his  informants 
gave  him  information  slightly  differing  from 
the  account  we  have  in  Mark,  this  only  shows 
us  that  inspiration  was  directed  toward  a  dif- 
ferent end  from  absolute  uniformity  in  detail. 
In  the  account  given  us  of  the  creation,  in- 
spiration enabled  the  writer,  not  to  give  a  de- 
scription in  which  thousands  of  years  afterward 
perfect  scientific  accuracy  might  be  found,  but 
to  discover  God  in  the  work.  And  throughout 
the  Old  Testament  history  it  is  not  the  material 
which  inspiration  guarantees,  but  the  spirit. 
Many  of  the  histories  there  recorded  might 
have  done  endless  harm  had  they  been  recorded 


Inspiration  127 

in  another  spirit,  in  the  spirit  that  glories  in 
vice,  revels  in  sensuality,  and  finds  the  devil 
everywhere.  Recorded  as  they  are,  by  inspired 
men,  God  is  seen  everywhere,  vice  is  made 
dangerous  and  abhorrent,  and  the  training  of 
mankind  by  the  Heavenly  Father  elucidated. 
This  is  primarily  what  inspiration  gives.  The 
Spirit  of  God  in  the  man  observing  perceives 
and  responds  to  the  same  Spirit  in  God  reveal- 
ing. Inspiration  enables  its  possessor  to  see 
and  apprehend  God  and  His  will,  and  to  im- 
part to  other  men  what  he  has  himself  seen  and 
apprehended ;  but  of  any  further  power  it  con- 
fers it  is  precarious  to  make  assertions. 

3.  Within  this  one  great  function  of  inspira-  Variety  in 
tion  considerable  variety  exists.  The  inspira-  pro^^c^s. 
tion  of  Isaiah  or  Paul  is  different  from  that  of 
the  compiler  of  Proverbs  or  the  annalist  who 
drew  up  Chronicles.  The  work  intrusted  to 
one  inspired  man  may  be  very  different  from 
that  intrusted  to  another,  and  we  are  not  to 
suppose  that  because  their  work  is  equally 
inspired  it  is  equally  profitable.  Look  at  the 
Bible  of  an  unsophisticated  Christian  and  you 
at  once  see  proof  that  some  parts  are  more  prof- 
itable than  others.  The  Psalms,  the  Gospel  of 
John,  the  Epistles,  are  blackened  and  illegible 
with  use,  while  the  book  of  Leviticus  or  Prov- 


128     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

erbs  is  clean  and  crisp.  In  the  human  body- 
there  are  essential  or  vital  organs  without  which 
human  life  cannot  be  maintained,  and  there  are 
parts  which  are  of  less  importance.  So  in  Scrip- 
ture there  are  parts  essential  to  its  being  and  to 
its  fulfilment  of  its  purpose,  and  parts  essential 
to  its  completeness. 
Purpose  of  4.  But  this  brings  us  to  consider  the  purpose 
tion.  for  which  inspiration  is  given.       It  is  not  a 

superfluous  gift  which  has  served  no  purpose 
or  a  purpose  which  could  have  been  served  by 
man's  unaided  faculty.  If  Scripture  is  inspired, 
this  is  because  there  was  a  necessity  for  inspira- 
tion; and  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  will  be 
of  a  kind  to  correspond  to  this  necessity.  Now 
the  necessity  which  called  for  inspiration  was 
the  necessity  of  having  the  self-manifestations 
of  God  understood  and  brought  into  contact 
with  human  knowledge  and  human  wants. 
This  being  the  purpose  of  inspiration,  we  may 
conclude  that  it  fulfils  this  purpose,  and  that 
we  have  in  Scripture  a  trustworthy  record  of 
the  revelation  of  God  and  His  will.  And  when 
the  word  "plenary"  is  used  of  inspiration  to 
convey  the  idea  that  the  inspiration  of  the 
writers  of  Scripture  was  sufficient  to  enable 
them  to  fulfil  this  purpose,  then  plainly  the 
afifirraation  of  the  plenary  inspiration  of  Scrip- 


Inspiration  129 

ture  is  legitimate.  But  if  by  "plenary  inspira- 
tion "  it  be  meant  that  every  phrase  and  letter 
of  Scripture  is  of  Divine  authority,  this  defini- 
tion cannot  be  sustained  by  what  we  know  of 
the  purpose  for  which  inspiration  was  given. 
For  that  inspiration  being  given  to  enable  men 
to  record  the  revelation  of  God  and  His  will, 
if  this  is  accomplished,  the  purpose  and  func- 
tion of  inspiration  are  accomplished ;  and  we 
have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  inspiration  will 
impart  to  its  possessors  keener  insight  into 
matters  which  cannot  be  included  in  the  cate- 
gory of  such  as  pertain  to  the  revelation  of  God 
and  His  will. 


V 

INFALLIBILITY 


V 

INFALLIBILITY 

It  would  be  idle  here  to  attempt  a  sketch  of  Criticism  of 
the  work  which  criticism  has  accomplished  in 
connection  with  the  Gospels.  The  investiga- 
tions of  Abbott  and  Sanday  and  Carpenter,  of 
Wright  and  Wilkinson,  Woods  and  Zahn  and 
Schmiedel,  and  especially  of  Sir  John  Haw- 
kins and  Wernle,  are  widely  known  and  their 
results  easily  accessible.  It  may  be  presumed 
that  every  one  who  is  in  any  degree  interested 
in  the  subject  is  aware  of  the  findings  arrived 
at  and  of  the  history  by  which  they  have  been 
reached.  It  may  be  presumed  that  we  are  all 
more  or  less  convinced  that  the  earliest  evan- 
gelic documents  now  traceable  are  the  reminis- 
cences of  Peter  recorded  by  Mark,  perhaps  in 
a  form  slightly  different  from  that  of  the  sec- 
ond Gospel ;  and  a  book  of  Logia,  which  may 
approximately  be  recovered  and  which  at  any 
rate  is  embodied  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  It 
must  also  be  taken  for  granted  that  our  own 
perusal  of  the  Gospels  has  justified  to  our 
133 


134      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

minds  the  pronouncements  of  criticism  regard- 
ing the  general  relations  of  the  Gospels  and 
their  individual  characteristics  ;  that  Mark  has 
been  used  both  by  the  first  and  the  third  evan- 
gelist, and  that  while  Matthew  (or  the  first 
evangelist)  writes  for  Jews  to  convince  them 
of  our  Lord's  Messiahship,  and  manifests  a 
tendency  to  group  both  events  and  discourses, 
Luke  shows  a  disposition  to  embellish  the  sim- 
plicity of  his  predecessor,  and,  writing  for  a  man 
of  education  with  a  Gentile  upbringing,  selects 
his  material  accordingly. 
By-products  But  in  pursuance  of  its  object  to  discover  the 
origin,  character,  and  relations  of  the  Gospels, 
criticism  has  thrown  off  some  by-products,  and 
it  is  with  these  we  now  have  to  do.  The  most 
important  of  these  we  must,  however,  mean- 
while neglect.  Nothing  influences  more  pro- 
foundly the  criticism  of  the  Gospels  than  the 
presupposition  of  the  incredibility  of  miracles. 
This  alters  entirely  the  character  of  the  life 
of  our  Lord  and  necessitates  the  branding  of 
the  evangelists  as  incompetent.  No  literary 
or  purely  historical  criticism  cuts  so  deep  into 
the  Gospels  as  this.  But  any  defence  of  the 
miraculous  involves  more  than  it  is  possible 
here  to  discuss ;  and,  besides,  it  appears  to  me 
that  it  will  be  of  greater  service  to  attend  to 


of  criticism. 


Infallihility  135 

matters  connected  with  Gospel  criticism  which 
are  actually  disturbing  the  faith  of  some  of 
the  members  of  the  Church  who  have  never 
doubted  that  our  Lord's  life  was  in  some  re- 
spects miraculous. 

Among  the  results  of  the  more  careful  exami-   Criticism 

,.  J.  o      •    j_  1  1  1  •         repudiates 

nation  oi  Dcripture  some  have  been  subversive  uterai 

of  previously  conceived  ideas  of  its  infallibility,  i'^^errancy. 
Criticism  with  a  virtually  unanimous  voice  de- 
clares that  literal  inerrancy  cannot  be  claimed 
for  the  books  either  of  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment. That  the  substance  of  the  history  is 
correct  has  been  proved  in  a  very  remarkable 
manner  by  the  unearthing  and  deciphering  of 
long-buried  records,  written  by  non-Palestinian 
races  yet  confirming  the  Hebrew  annals  in  their 
main  particulars.  But  the  same  criticism  which 
has  made  good  use  of  those  ancient  records  and 
monuments  to  confirm  the  statements  of  the 
Bible  has  also  pointed  out  certain  errors  in 
chronology  and  in  some  other  details.  Re- 
stricting ourselves  to  the  New  Testament  and 
to  the  Gospels,  and  to  the  universally  admitted 
results  of  criticism,  it  has  been  put  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt  that  there  exist  irreconcilable 
discrepancies  between  the  four  accounts  of  some 
of  our  Lord's  sayings  and  actions,  and  that  it 
is  impossible  to  determine,  save  on  grounds  of 


a 


v- 


136     The  Bible :  Its   Origin  and  Nature 

probability,  which  Gospel  we  should  follow. 
One  or  two  examples  selected  at  random  will 
suffice.  No  two  evangelists  agree  in  their 
report  of  the  title  on  the  cross,  or  in  their  ac- 
count of  the  appearances  of  our  Lord  after  the 
resurrection.  According  to  Mark  and  Luke, 
the  women  brought  spices  to  anoint  the  body, 
when  it  had  already  been  in  the  sepulchre  for 
two  nights  and  a  day;  according  to  John, 
Joseph  of  Arimathcea  and  Nicodemus  had 
already  anointed  the  body  before  placing  it 
in  the  sepulchre.  According  to  Mark,  Luke, 
and  John  the  women  found  the  stone  already 
rolled  away  from  the  entrance  to  the  tomb  ; 
according  to  Matthew  this  was  accomplished 
by  an  angel  in  presence  of  the  women.  The 
narrative  of  the  events  accompanying  the  res- 
urrection, as  it  exists  in  Matthew,  is  generally 
irreconcilable  with  that  of  the  other  Gospels. 
Even  in  regard  to  the  date  of  the  last  supper 
and  the  crucifixion'Hhe  Gospels  differ.  Some- 
times very  puzzling  discrepancies  occur  in  the 
report  of  sayings  which  have  a  direct  bearing 
upon  the  conduct  of  life.  For  example,  in 
Matt.  xix.  9,  we  read,  "Whosoever  shall  put 
away  his  wife,  except  for  fornication,  and  shall 
marry  another,  committeth  adultery."  But 
in  Luke  this  great  law  is  given  without  any 


Infallibility  137 

exception,  "  Whosoever  putteth  away  his  wife, 
and  marrieth  another,  committeth  adultery." 
Which  of  these  two  very  diverse  laws  ought 
the  Church  to  follow  ?  Not  only  are  the  Gos- 
pels at  variance  with  one  another  in  certain 
passages,  but  the  individual  writers  seem  not 
to  have  been  exempt  from  liability  to  error. 
Mark  quotes  Malachi  under  the  name  of  Isaiah  ; 
and  Matthew  ascribes  to  Jeremiah  words  spoken 
by  Zechariah. 

Now  there  are  three  methods  of  dealing  with   Three 

,1  J      J.1  •  n     ^•  e        -j^-      methods  of 

these  and  other  more  serious  nndmgs  oi  criti-  treating 

cism.     The   first   is   to    deny  the  existence  of  discrepmv- 

"^  ^  cies. 

these  or  any  errors.  The  second  is  to  admit 
the  errors  and  to  infer  from  their  existence  that 
the  Bible  is  untrustworthy,  not  infallible.  The 
third  is  to  admit  the  errors  while  at  the  same 
time  maintaining  and  exhibiting  the  infallibil- 
ity of  the  Bible  notwithstanding. 

The  first  method  seems  likely  to  blind  men  First 
to  the  true  nature  of  the  Bible  and  to  lead  to  ^^* 
disingenuousness,  mischief,  and  unbelief.  The 
second  method  is  the  result  of  ignorance,  and 
especially  of  a  misunderstanding  of  infallibility. 
The  third  gives  us  a  sure  standing  ground  and 
leads  us  to  recognize  the  actual  infallibility 
of  Scripture.  It  can,  I  think,  be  demonstrated 
that   although   we   grant    to    criticism    all    it 


138      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  atid  Nature 

claims,  the  Bible  remains  the  infallible  and 
authoritative  word  of  God ;  that,  in  fact,  it 
is  independent  of  criticism.  As  Professor 
Stevens  of  Yale  long  ago  said,  "Amid  all 
the  controversies  about  the  Bible  and  the  at- 
tacks upon  it,  the  Christian  heart  may  rest 
secure  in  this  conviction,  that  the  unique  char- 
acter and  value  of  the  Bible  are  as  secure  as 
are  the  unique  character  and  significance  of  the 
person  of  Christ."  ^  It  is  a  common  presump- 
tion nowadays  that  the  Bible  has  been  dis- 
credited by  criticism  ;  that  like  some  old  and 
musty  document  preserved  for  ages  in  a  sacred 
obscurity,  it  has  crumbled  to  dust  as  soon  as 
frankly  exposed  to  the  light  of  day ;  that  it 
has  been  so  riddled  with  the  shot  and  shell  of 
modern  scientific  warfare  as  to  be  on  the  point 
of  sinking.  But  this  involves  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  the  Bible  and  of  the  secret  of  its  infalli- 
bility. Modern  assaults  have  developed  new 
methods  of  defence  and  a  fresh  perception  of 
the  real  strength  of  the  Bible.  Until  criticism 
made  it  impossible  for  us  any  longer  to  identify 

1  "  Doctrine  and  Life,"  p.  58.  Cf.  Professor  Wood's 
"A  Tenable  Tlieory  of  Inspiration  "  :  "The  Bible  can  never 
be  replaced  until  some  history  has  been  produced  that  shall 
reveal  God  more  clearly  than  the  history  of  Israel  and  of 
the  first  Christian  century.  A  better  book  than  the  Bible 
cannot  be  v?ritten  until  a  better  life  than  that  of  Christ  ha3 
been  lived." 


Infallibility  139 

infallibility  with  literal  inerrancy,  it  was  a  de- 
lusive and  non-existent  infallibility  that  was 
ascribed  to  the  Bible.  But  now  the  real  seat 
and  character  of  its  infallibility  is  discovered, 
and  it  is  found  to  be  an  infallibility  that  can 
never  be  taken  away  from  it. 

How  this  is  so  we  shall  shortly  see.  But 
first,  a  word  or  two  on  the  spurious  infallibility 
or  literal  inerrancy  of  Scripture. 

I  have  said  that  with  a  practically  unanimous  Criticism 
voice  criticism    declares  that  Scripture  is  not  against  in- 
absolutely  free  from  error.    It  may  be  said  that  ^J'^^^'^'^v  «/ 

''  ''  Scripture. 

no  critic  of  repute  denies  that,  in  more  or  fewer 
particulars,  mistake  of  more  or  less  magnitude 
has  crept  in.  There  are,  however,  theologians 
of  repute  who  maintain  that  every  statement 
of  the  Bible  is  infallibly  accurate  ;  that  whether 
it  be  science  or  chronology  or  history  that  is 
touched  upon,  all  is  absolutely  inerrant.  Drs. 
Hodge  and  Warfield,  for  example,  men  of  wide 
learning  and  well-earned  theological  repute, 
maintain  that  God  presided  over  the  sacred 
writers  in  their  entire  work  of  writing,  "with 
the  design  and  effect  of  making  that  writing 
an  errorless  record."  ^  And  again,  "A  proved 
error  in  Scripture  contradicts  not  only  our  doc- 
trine, but  the  Bible  claims,  and  therefore  its 
1  Presbyterian  Review^  Vol.  11. 


140      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

inspiration  in  making  these  claims."^  And  not 
a  few  less  distinguished  persons  declare  that 
their  salvation  depends  on  the  absolute  accu- 
racy of  every  word  from  the  first  in  Genesis  to 
the  last  in  Revelation.  Happily  their  salvation 
depends  on  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  on  a  living 
Person  whom  we  can  know  and  trust  if  the 
Gospels  are  no  more  trustworthy  than  Plutarch 
or  Tacitus,  or  any  ordinary  history  or  biog- 
raphy. If  Matthew  affirms  that  Jesus  was 
asked  by  the  people.  Is  it  lawful  to  heal  on 
the  Sabbath-day  ?  while  in  point  of  fact,  as 
another  Gospel  tells  us,  it  was  He  who  put  that 
question  to  them,  is  my  salvation  thereby  im- 
perilled ?  If  we  are  told  in  Samuel  that  the 
price  paid  for  Araunah's  threshing  floor  was 
fifty  silver  shekels,  while  in  Chronicles  we  are 
told  that  it  was  six  hundred  gold  shekels,  does 
this  prevent  my  perceiving  that  Christ  reveals 
God  and  accepting  that  revelation?  To  me  the 
assertion  seems  simply  monstrous.  And  that 
intelligent  Christian  men  should  avow  that 
their  faith  hangs  on  so  precarious  a  tenure  is  a 
most  significant  circumstance. 
Recoil  from  This  uneasiness  about  the  inerrancy  of  Scrip- 
ture in  all  matters  of  detail  is  worthy  of  atten- 
tion, because  many  are  seriously  disturbed  by 
^  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol.  II.,  p.  245. 


claim  of 
inerrancy 


Infallibility  141 

the  results  of  criticism  and  in  some  instances 
the  recoil  from  a  belief  in  the  infallible  accu- 
racy of  Scripture  has  had  disastrous  conse- 
quences. It  is  truly  said  that  "the  man  who 
binds  up  the  cause  of  Christianity  with  the 
literal  accuracy  of  the  Bible  is  no  friend  of 
Christianity,  for  with  the  rejection  of  that 
theory  too  often  comes  the  rejection  of  the 
Bible  itself,  and  faith  is  shattered."^  In  Re- 
nan's  case  this  was  the  result.  He  tells  us  in 
his  "  Recollections  "  ^  that  he  had  been  brought 
up  in  the  belief  that  it  was  essential  to  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine  of  Scripture  to  accept  it  as  iner- 
rant  in  every  line.  When  he  entered  upon  the 
study  of  the  history  of  Israel  he  soon  discov- 
ered that  such  a  claim  was  untenable,  and  ac- 
cordingly parted  company  with  the  Church. 
So,  too,  Charles  Bradlaugh,  from  an  ingenuous 

1  Snell,  "  Gain  or  Loss,"  p.  20. 

2  "  In  a  divine  book  everything  must  be  true,  and  as  two 
contradictions  cannot  botli  be  true,  it  must  not  contain 
any  contradiction.  But  the  careful  study  of  the  Bible  which 
I  had  undertaken,  while  revealing  to  me  many  historical  and 
aesthetic  treasures,  proved  to  me  also  that  it  was  not  more 
exempt  than  any  other  ancient  book  from  contradictions, 
inadvertencies,  and  errors."  —  Renan,  "Recollections," 
p.  256. 

"The  mildest  Catholic  doctrine  as  to  inspiration  will  not 
allow  one  to  admit  there  is  any  marked  error  in  the  sacred 
text,  or  any  contradiction  in  matters  which  do  not  relate 
either  to  faith  or  morality  "  (p.  257). 


142      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

and  inquiring  youth,  was  turned  into  a  bitter 
opponent  of  the  faith  because  a  kind  of  faith  in 
Scripture  was  demanded  of  him  which  he  could 
not  honestly  give.  The  whole  force  of  Inger- 
soll's  arguments,  by  means  of  which  he  turned 
hundreds  from  Christianity,  depends  on  an  ac- 
ceptance of  the  literal  and  total  infallibility  of 
Scripture.  Given  a  true  view  of  Scripture,  his 
whole  contention  falls  to  the  ground.  Those 
who  maintain  that  we  must  accept  every  state- 
ment of  Scripture,  or  none  of  it,  should  con- 
sider that  no  doctrine  more  surely  manufactures 
sceptics.  "  It  seems,"  says  Dr.  Stearns,  "  a  very 
good  and  pious  thing  to  insist  that  the  Bible  is 
absolutely  without  error.  But  nothing  is  good 
or  pious  that  is  contrary  to  facts."  And  to 
those  who  avow  that  their  faith  hangs  upon  the 
infallibility  of  the  letter,  nothing  better  can  be 
said  than  what  was  indignantly  said  by  Fred- 
erick Denison  Maurice  :  "  I  will  not  believe  any 
Christian  man,  even  upon  his  own  testimony, 
who  tells  me  that  he  should  cease  to  trust  in 
the  Son  of  God,  because  he  found  chronological 
or  historical  misstatements  in  the  Scriptures,  as 
great  as  ever  have  been  charged  against  them 
by  their  bitterest  opponents.  If  I  did  suspect 
him  of  such  hollowness,  I  should  pray  for  him 
that  he  might  never  meet  with  any  travellers  or 


Infallihility  143 

philologers  who  confirmed  the  statements  of 
Scripture,  none  but  such  as  denied  them  or 
mocked  at  them,  because  the  sooner  such  a 
foundation  is  shaken,  the  better  it  will  be  for 
them." 

I  have  said  that  the  denial  of  errors  in  the  Disingenu- 
Gospels  leads  men  to  a  disingenuous  treatment  ,,^5,^^  ^y  " 
of  the  narratives.  If  they  find  that  one  Gospel  ^^'ospe^s. 
relates  the  healing  of  one  blind  man  as  Jesus 
entered  Jericho,  while  another  relates  the  cure 
of  two  blind  men  on  His  leaving  it,  the  harmo- 
nizer  at  once  steps  forward  and  solves  the  dis- 
crepancy by  affirming  that  of  course  three  blind 
men  were  healed,  —  the  one  at  the  entrance, 
the  others  at  the  exit.  This  he  will  do  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  it  is  Matthew's  habit 
to  duplicate,  and  regardless  of  the  similarity  or 
we  may  say  identity  of  the  narratives  in  other 
respects,  —  in  the  pause  made  by  Jesus  on  the 
road,  in  the  question  He  puts,  and  in  the  answer 
He  receives.  This  I  think  may,  without  harsh- 
ness, be  called  disingenuous,  and  moreover  it 
turns  attention  away  from  the  feature  of  the 
narratives  which  prompted  its  recital,  the  fact, 
not  that  Jesus  was  at  the  one  gate  or  the  other 
of  the  city,  for  that  is  of  no  significance,  but 
that  He  was  addressed  as  Son  of  David.  That 
in   some   instances   the  Gospels  complete   one 


144      The  Bible :   Its  Origi7i  and  Nature 

another  is  no  doubt  true  ;  but  this  harmonizing 
by  simple  addition  is  a  method  which  may  very 
easily  betray  us,  and  which  at  any  rate  becomes 
quite  useless  when  the  Gospels  contradict  one 
another. 
No  literally  Another  method  of  evading  the  acknowledg- 
^Scripture  nient  of  error,  if  not  disingenuous,  is  thought- 
less. I  refer  to  the  method  of  shifting  the  claim 
of  infallibility  from  Scripture  as  we  have  it,  to 
Scripture  as  it  came  from  the  writer's  hand. 
This  is  a  vain  subterfuge,  and  it  is  based  upon 
a  misunderstanding  of  the  character  of  the 
errors  alleged.  These  errors  are  not  such  as 
could  be  introduced  into  the  text  by  the  blun- 
ders of  copyists.  They  are  not  confined  to  sin- 
gle words  or  lines.  Such  errors  in  numbers 
or  names  may  exist  in  the  Old  Testament. 
But  in  the  Gospels  the  misstatements  pointed 
out  by  criticism  are  such  as  could  only  have 
been  made  by  the  original  writers.  The  sub- 
terfuge is  based,  then,  upon  a  misapprehension. 
But  also  it  is  idle.  For  what  possible  use  to  us 
can  an  infallible  Scripture  be  which  has  long 
since  passed  out  of  existence  ?  If  a  Scripture 
literally  infallible  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
where  is  it  to  be  found  ?  We  know  that  our 
present  texts  are  only  an  approximation  to 
what  was  originally  written.     We  cannot  be 


Infallibility  145 

quite  sure  in  every  case  that  this  or  that  was 
the  word  used  by  an  apostle  or  spoken  by  our 
Lord.  This  demand,  in  short,  for  a  literally 
infallible  Scripture  cannot  by  any  possibility 
be  satisfied. 

The   reluctance   to   admit   the    existence   of  Natural  re- 

S-    ,  ■  ,  ■    '  ■>  ■  luctance  to 

cripture  is  not  surprising,  and  is  even  admit  error. 

in  a  sense  commendable.     It  arises  from  our 

natural  instinct  to  reverence  and  exalt  those 

who  have  been  the  organs  of  revelation,  and 

in  a  manner  mediators  between  God  and   us. 

Knowing  how  much  we  owe  them,  we  cannot 

bear  to  ascribe  to  them  any  least   degree   of 

faultiness.     When  Peter  and  Paul  disagree,  we 

turn  away  from  the  quarrel,  and  refuse  to  draw 

the  necessary  inference  that  Peter  did  his  best 

to   mislead  the   Church  on  a   matter   of  vital 

importance. 

More   powerful   even   than    this   wholesome  Results  of 

/^i-,-        -J.-      J.. I,  •  1        J.       T  (••        inspiration. 

Christian  instinct  the  misunderstanding  oi  in- 
spiration and  its  results  has  led  Christian  people 
to  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  writers  of 
Scripture.  Inspiration  is  the  indwelling  of  the 
Divine  Spirit.  All  Christians  believe  that  they 
themselves  enjoy  this  indwelling,  but  they  are 
not  conscious  of  becoming  infallible.  Some  of 
the  men  who  have  most  fully  possessed  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  have  been  profoundly  ignorant 


146      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 


Inspiration 
one  tliinr/, 
infallibility 
another. 


persons.  A  i^riori  we  cannot  affirm  what  re- 
sults inspiration  will  have  in  the  writers  of 
Scripture.  How  far  it  produced  a  more  accu- 
rate knowledge  of  things  external  and  non- 
essential we  can  only  gather  from  examination 
of  the  actual  results  as  found  in  their  writings. 
Certainly  a  high  degree  of  inspiration,  such  as 
that  enjoyed  by  Paul,  brings  a  man  into  a  close 
fellowship  with  Christ;  and  his  experience  of 
the  source,  the  graciousness,  the  power,  and  the 
joy  of  that  fellowship  gives  him  knowledge  of 
the  true  eternal  relation  of  the  soul  to  Christ 
fitted  to  make  him  an  authoritative  teacher  of 
others.  But  the  full  indwelling  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  "  inspiration  "  of  Paul  or  of  Stephen, 
did  not  prevent  them  from  stumbling  in  dates 
and  details. 

Looking,  then,  at  the  facts  of  Scripture,  we 
see  that  inspiration  is  one  thing,  infallibility 
another.  Presumably  the  writers  of  the  books 
of  Kings  and  Chronicles  were  inspired,  yet  it 
is  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  many 
discrepancies  exist  in  these  books.  Professor 
Sayce,  one  of  the  most  conservative  of  living 
critics,  tells  us  that  "  Assyrian  inscriptions  have 
shown  that  the  chronology  of  the  book  of 
Kings  is  hopelessly  wrong."  We  also  find 
that  the  historical  writers  of  the  Old  Testa- 


Infallibility/ 


147 


ment  refer  to  older  documents  as  their  authori- 
ties, precisely  as  secular  historians  depend  on 
national  archives  and  contemporary  accounts. 
And  if  inspiration  did  not  give  a  direct  knowl- 
edge of  past  events,  but  left  inspired  writers 
to  depend  on  contemporary  witnesses,  is  it 
credible  that  inspiration  would  enable  them  to 
detect  mistakes  in  those  older  writers  ?  If  '^-''^^ 
inspiration  gave  the  latter  species  of  insight, 
one  does  not  see  why  it  should  not  have  given 
the  former. 

Throughout  the  New  Testament  also  there 
is  evidence  that  inspiration  did  not  render  its 
subjects  infallible  in  their  criticism  or  lift  them 
above  the  level  of  contemporary  knowledge. 
Jude,  an  inspired  man,  cites  the  apocryphal 
book  of  Enoch,  written  shortly  before  his  own 
time,  as  if  it  were  the  utterance  of  the  ante- 
diluvian who  walked  with  God.  All  the 
writers  expected  the  speedy  return  of  Christ — 
an  expectation  which  events  have  proved  to  be 
erroneous.  In  short,  the  facts  of  Scripture  put 
it  beyond  doubt  that  inspiration  does  not  in- 
volve infallibility. 

Admitting,  then,  the  finding  of  criticism  that  Inaccu- 
inerrancy  cannot  be  claimed  for  the  Gospels  or  scripture 
for  Scripture  generally,  we  go  on  to  ask  how  "''^  slight. 
this  affects  the  infallibility  of  Scripture.      It 


lA-zrC 


148      The  Bible :    Its  Origin  and  Nature 

is  this  which  lends  interest  to  the  subject. 
For,  apart  from  the  error  ascribed  to  the  Gos- 
pels on  account  of  their  narration  of  supposed 
miracles,  the  misstatements  found  in  them  are 
triflinsr.  None  of  them  are  such  as  to  make 
the  reader  feel  uncertain  about  the  trustworthi- 
ness or  general  accuracy  of  the  writers.  In- 
deed, no  one  can  fail  to  be  struck  with  the 
manner  in  which  they  stand  the  tests  which  fresh 
discoveries  are  from  year  to  year  applying  to 
their  accuracy.  For  example,  the  topographical 
errors  so  freely  ascribed  to  the  fourth  Gospel 
a  few  years  ago  are  now,  since  the  Palestinian 
Survey,  no  more  heard  of.  The  inaccuracies 
which  do  occur  are  so  trifling  that  one  feels 
ashamed  to  point  them  out.  They  are  the 
little  cracks  or  miniature  crevasses  in  the  con- 
tinuous surface  of  the  glacier  which  are  un- 
noticed and  taken  in  the  stride  of  the  honest 
wayfarer  bent  on  attaining  the  summit.  If  the 
pedestrian  wantonly  thrusts  his  foot  into  a 
hole,  he  may  twist  his  ankle  and  prevent 
further  progress,  but  for  the  honest  man  they 
present  no  real  break,  hindrance,  or  pitfall. 
Why  notice  Why,  then,  notice  them  ?  We  are  compelled 
to  notice  them,  partly  because  without  recog- 
nizing the  facts  of  the  Bible  we  cannot  hope  to 
reach  any  just  conception  of  its  nature  ;  partly 


them  ? 


Infallihility  149 

because  it  is  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the 
insignificance  of  these  discrepancies  ;  but  mainly 
because  they  lead  us  to  distinguish  between  a 
spurious  infallibility  and  that  which  is  genuine. 

Before  going  on  to  exhibit  the  genuine  infal-  The  craving 
libility  of  Scripture,  it  may  be  well  to  ask  what  uhlTguide. 
grounds  we  have  for  demanding  or  expecting 
an  infallible  guide  in  religion,  of  the  kind  that 
is  sought  in  the  Bible.  The  craving  for  such  a 
guide  arises  from  two  sources.  The  first  is  the 
shrinking  from  responsibility  which  character- 
izes not  all  men,  but  the  vast  majority.  Vari- 
ous are  the  devices  by  which  men  have  sought 
to  evade  the  burden  of  self-determination  :  the 
lot,  the  oracle,  supposed  providences,  the  merest 
turn  of  a  coin  or  opening  of  a  book,  anything 
which  will  give  them  a  pretext  for  trusting 
some  other  impulse  than  that  of  their  own 
reason. 

The  second  source  of  this  craving  is  the  sup-  For  a  judge 

-,  1      (•       •     1        •  .  •  o     1  in  contro- 

posed  need  or  a  judge  m  controversies,  oo  long  ^^^sies. 
as  a  man  uses  the  Bible  only  to  find  his  own 
way  to  God,  it  does  not  occur  to  him  that  any 
stringent  theory  of  infallibility  is  required.  He 
seeks  for  God,  and  he  finds  Him.  It  is  only 
when  he  begins  to  urge  his  views  upon  others, 
and  becomes  impatient  at  the  slowness  with 
which  conviction  grows  in  them,  that  he  seeks 


150      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 


Common 
liahilitrj  to 
error. 


No  evasion 
of  respotisi- 
bilUy  possi- 
ble. 


an  irresistible  authority  that  compels  submis- 
sion. It  is,  at  bottom,  unbelief  in  spiritual 
forces.  An  external,  irresistible  authority  is 
sought,  —  an  authority  easily  accessible  and 
easily  applied,  —  as  if  men  could  not  be  trusted 
to  recognize  truth  when  they  see  it,  or  even  to 
wish  to  find  God. 

In  other  departments  of  knowledge  men  have 
been  allowed  to  sift  the  false  from  the  true  at 
the  greatest  expenditure  of  time  and  of  life  ; 
they  have  been  allowed  to  make  mistakes  and 
to  follow  those  mistakes  to  their  issues;  they 
have  been  allowed  to  sacrifice  thousands  of  hu- 
man lives  in  every  generation  to  mistaken  ideas. 
It  may  be  urged  that  in  religion  the  consequence 
of  error  is  so  grave  that  it  cannot  be  supposed 
men  should  be  left  to  any  uncertainty  here. 
But  in  point  of  fact  the  majority  of  men  have 
been  left  in  ignorance,  or  with  only  such  wit- 
ness to  God's  existence  and  goodness  as  could 
be  available  for  those  who  were  prepared  to 
search,  to  sift,  to  think,  to  act. 

Escape  from  all  possibility  of  error  and  from 
the  responsibility  of  determining  our  own  future 
is  impossible  whether  we  choose  the  Church  as 
our  infallible  guide,  or  Scripture,  or  Christ  Him- 
self ;  it  must  be  our  choice  that  is  exercised,  our 
judgment  that  determines  this  great  step.     We 


Infallibility  151 

cannot  get  behind  ourselves  and  find  some  other 
spring  of  action  than  our  own  determination. 
It  must  be  by  the  response  of  our  own  con- 
science to  Christ's  personality  and  words  that 
we  choose  Him  as  our  ultimate  authority.  The 
testimony  of  others  may  aid  us :  the  Gospels 
are  necessary  to  show  us  what  He  is  and  to 
preserve  to  us  His  true  image  and  His  very 
claims  ;  but  it  is  we  ourselves  who  must  for  our- 
selves determine  whether  this  Person  is  what 
He  claims  to  be. 

But  the  main  question  for  us  is,  What  is  the  Nature  of 
infallibility  which  may  be  claimed  for  Scripture  determined 
and  especially  for  the  Gospels  ?     Many  persons  ^J^l"^^-*^ 
lightly  claim  infallibility  for  Scripture  without  ture. 
once  asking  themselves  the  question,  "  Infalli- 
ble for  what  ?  "     The  whole  matter  hinges  here. 
What  is  the  infallibility  we  claim  for  the  Bible  ? 
Is  it  infallibility  in  grammar,  in  style,  in  his- 
tory, in  science,  or  what  ?     Its  infallibility/  must 
be  determined  by  its  purpose.     If  you  say  that 
your  watch  is  infallible,  you  mean,  as  a  time- 
keeper ;  —  not  that  it  has  a  flawless  case,  not  that 
it  will  tell  you  the  day  of  the  month,  or  predict 
to-morrow's  weather.     The  navigator  finds  his 
chart  infallible  as  a  guide  to  lighthouses,  and 
shallows,  and  sunken  rocks,  but  useless  to  give 
him  the  time  of  day  or  to  inform  him  of  the 


152      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 


Purpose  of 
Scripture. 


Minor  er- 
rors no  diffi- 
culty. 


products  and  prices  of  the  land  he  is  bound  for. 
A  guide  may  infallibly  lead  you  over  a  difficult 
and  not  easily  found  pass,  although  he  is  igno- 
rant of  any  language  but  his  own  and  knows 
little  that  happens  beyond  his  own  mountains. 

What,  then,  is  the  purpose  of  the  Bible  ?  Its 
purpose  is  to  exhibit  Christ.  As  our  Lord 
Himself  defined  the  Scriptures,  "  They  are  they 
which  testify  of  me."  By  means  of  the  Scrip- 
tures the  knowledge  of  God's  saving  love  in 
Christ  is  communicated  to  the  world.  It  was 
not  God's  purpose  to  teach  science  or  ethnology 
by  them,  nor  to  give  us  knowledge  of  matters 
about  which  men  are  always  curious,  such  as 
the  conditions  of  a  future  life ;  it  was  not  His 
purpose  to  make  us  theological  experts,  —  else 
He  had  signally  failed,  —  but  His  purpose  was 
to  set  Christ  before  men  in  living  grace  and 
majesty,  and  so  perpetuate  the  knowledge  of 
Him  upon  earth.  In  Christ  we  have  the  supreme 
revelation  of  God,  and  if  Scripture  conveys  to 
us  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  Christ,  it  accom- 
plishes its  purpose.  Luther  was  right  when 
he  said,  "  That  is  not  Scripture  which  does  not 
exhibit  Christ." 

Now  no  sooner  do  we  grasp  this  conception 
of  Scripture  than  we  recognize  that  discrepan- 
cies in  the  Gospels,  or  errors  in  other  parts  of 


Infallihility  153 

the  Bible,  are  of  no  consequence  at  all  as  affect- 
ing the  account  given  us  of  Christ.  The  four 
Gospels  differ  from  one  another  in  this  or  that 
part  of  their  narrative,  but  it  is  the  same  Christ 
which  each  exhibits.  The  trustworthiness  of 
the  Gospels  is  guaranteed  both  by  the  agree- 
ment, in  the  main,  of  these  four  accounts,  and 
by  the  fact  that  the  ordinary  Christian  has 
never  found  any  difficulty  in  forming  one  con- 
sistent image  of  Christ  out  of  the  four  accounts. 
The  discrepancies  only  become  dangerous  when 
they  are  used  as  a  lever  to  subvert  the  infalli- 
bility of  Scripture.  And  they  are  frequently 
thus  used  by  persons  who  take  advantage  of 
the  claim  of  literal  infallibility  advanced  by 
well-intentioned  but  inconsiderate  persons.  This 
claim  of  literal  infallibility  is  easily  disposed  of 
by  means  of  these  discrepancies  —  here  are  clear 
instances  in  which  it  is  impossible  to  claim  this 
kind  of  infallibility  ;  and  hence  the  inference 
is  at  once  drawn  that  the  Bible  is  not  in  any 
sense  infallible.  The  inference  is  utterly  un- 
justifiable. Literal  infallibility  is  not  that  for 
which  we  contend ;  and  these  discrepancies 
might  be  multiplied  a  hundred  fold  and  yet 
avail  nothing  to  discredit  the  true  infallibility 
of  Scripture.  And  this  for  two  reasons  :  — 
1.  Unimportant  errors  in  detail  are  never  suf- 


154      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 


They  do  not 
disa'edit 
the  histo- 
rian. 


What  errors 
are  unim- 
portatit. 


fered  to  discredit  a  historian.  The  rule  "falsus 
in  uno,  falsus  in  omnibus  "  is  valid  in  the  law 
courts  as  applicable  to  a  witness  who  is  found 
intentionally  distorting  truth.  A  witness  on 
oath  who,  with  intent  to  deceive,  withholds  or 
perverts  truth  is  of  course  discredited  in  the 
whole  of  his  testimony.  But  the  maxim  has  no 
application  to  ordinary  life  or  to  the  writing  of 
history.  For  there  is  no  man  who  has  not 
occasionally  stumbled  into  error,  —  error  at  once 
condoned  and  which  reflects  no  shadow  on  his 
general  reputation  for  truth.  Tacitus  has  been 
found  in  error,  but  we  do  not  on  that  account 
read  his  Annals  or  his  Histories  with  a  watchful 
suspicion.  There  is  no  historian  who  has  not 
been  proved  in  error ;  but  occasional,  uninten- 
tional, and  unimportant  error  is  lost  to  view  in 
the  general  reputation  for  accuracy  which  the 
historian  acquires. 

2.  And,  secondly,  if  it  be  said,  is  not  all  error 
important  where  Divine  truth  and  eternal  inter- 
ests are  concerned  ?  we  answer.  No !  else  God 
would  have  provided  for  the  absence  of  all 
error.  Error  is  unimportant  when  it  does  not 
affect  the  purpose  of  the  whole.  Errors  in  gram- 
mar are  of  no  consequence  when  the  meaning 
remains  intelligible  and  the  sense  unaffected. 
No  errors  in  Scripture  are  of  importance  which 


Infallihility  155 

do  not  prevent  it  from  accomplishing  God's 
purpose  of  preserving  for  us  the  knowledge  of 
His  revelation  in  Christ.  It  must  be  judged 
by  its  fulfilment  of  its  object,  and  its  object  was 
to  enable  us  to  apprehend  God  in  Christ  and 
lead  us  to  Him.  This  object  it  has  infallibly 
accomplished.  Men  who  have  devoutly  sought 
God  in  Christ  have  found  him.  The  Christian 
ages  stand  behind  us  with  their  irrefutable 
testimony.  The  Scriptures  have  infallibly  led 
men  to  Christ.  They  have  fulfilled  the  function 
which  Christ  ascribed  to  them.  They  have  set 
before  men  a  Christ  in  whom  God  is  found. 

It  is  perhaps  worth  while  to  adduce  the  testi-  Testimonies 
mony  of  one  or  two  authorities  on  this  subject. 
The  last  century  produced  no  more  daring  and 
untrammelled  thinker  than  Heine,  no  man  less 
controlled  or  influenced  by  other  men's  faiths 
and  opinions,  but  we  find  him  saying,  "  He  that 
has  lost  his  God  can  find  Him  again  in  this 
book,  and  toward  him  who  has  never  known 
Him  it  wafts  the  breath  of  the  Divine  word." 
After  Dr.  Martineau  has  cut  away  from  the 
Gospels  ten  times  more  than  a  sober  criticism 
warrants,  he  is  still  constrained  to  say,  "  No  one 
can  affect  ignorance  of  what  Jesus  was ;  enough 
is  saved  to  plant  His  personality  in  a  clear  space, 
distinct  from  all  that  history,  or  even  fiction. 


to  Scripture. 


156      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

presents."  1  Still  more  definitely  Robertson 
Smith:  "So  long  as  we  go  to  Scripture  only  to 
find  in  it  God  and  His  redeeming  love  mirrored 
before  the  eye  of  faith,  we  may  rest  assured 
that  we  shall  find  living,  self-evidencing,  infalli- 
ble truth  in  every  part  of  it,  and  that  we  shall 
find  nothing  else.  .  .  .  Since  Scripture  has  no 
other  end  than  to  convey  to  us  a  message  which, 
when  accompanied  by  the  inner  witness  of  the 
Spirit,  manifests  itself  as  the  infallible  word  of 
God,  we  may  for  practical  purposes  say  that 
Scripture  is  the  infallible  word  of  God." 
Touchstone  Here  we  reach  the  true  touchstone  of  Scrip- 
ture, ture.  Why  do  I  receive  it  as  the  word  of 
God?  Is  it  because  the  Church  certifies  it  and 
assures  me  it  is  infallible?  But  the  Church 
herself  is  not  infallible,  and  she  may  be  in  error 
in  this  as  she  has  been  elsewhere.  Is  it  because 
Scripture  itself  claims  infallibility?  But  Scrip- 
ture does  not ;  and  if  it  did,  how  do  I  know  I 
should  believe  it?  Many  have  claimed  to  be 
Divine  messengers  who  have  been  proved  false. 
The  only  possible  ultimate  ground  for  believing 
Scripture  to  he  the  word  of  G-od  is  that  there  is 
that  in  the  truth  delivered  which  convinces  me 
that  Crod  is  its  Author.  In  the  last  resort  you 
must  depend  solely  on  your  own  conviction 
1  "Seat  of  Authority,"  p.  607. 


Infallibility  157 

that  here  God  speaks  to  you.  If  there  is  not  a 
self-evidencing  power  in  Christ  and  in  His  rev- 
elation, you  vs^ill  never  find  evidence  of  His 
truth  anywhere  else. 

It   would   seem    that    the   members    of    our  Christ  is 

,,  irr  Ji-j-j.1^    self-authen- 

churches  are  yet  tar  from  understanding  that  ucating. 
the  authentication  of  Christ  cannot  be  touched 
by  criticism ;  that  He  is  His  own  best  witness, 
and  that  this  witness  is  independent  of  any  doc- 
trine or  theory  of  the  inspiration  or  infallibility 
of  Scripture.  That  Christ  has  given  to  the 
world  the  highest  idea  of  God  ever  promul- 
gated, that  the  conscience  of  every  man  who  is 
brought  into  His  presence  acknowledges  Christ 
as  the  best  and  divinest  he  knows  or  can  con- 
ceive—  these  are  incontestable  facts.  Before 
we  form  any  opinion  about  the  Gospels,  and 
even  though  we  see  much  in  them  that  we  can- 
not accept,  they  set  before  us  this  unique  figure 
—  a  figure  far  beyond  the  creative  power  of  the 
writers  and  carrjdng  in  it  its  own  authentica- 
tion, its  own  direct  appeal  to  heart  and  con- 
science and  reason.  We  need  as  little  fear  the 
nibblings  of  criticism  as  we  fear  the  minute 
erosions  of  our  shores  by  the  ocean.  The 
knowledge  of  God  actually  conveyed  to  all 
who  read  the  Gospels  cannot  be  taken  away, 
and  that  knowledge  is  life  eternal. 


158     The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

Two  ex-  The  two  extreme  positions,  then,  are  alike 

lions.  untenable.      It  is  impossible  to  maintain  the 

infallibility  of  Scripture  on  the  ground  of  its 
literal  accuracy  in  every  one  of  its  statements ; 
and  it  is  impossible  to  deny  the  infallibility  of 
Scripture  as  a  spiritual  guide  on  the  ground 
that  there  are  found  in  it  certain  errors  and 
discrepancies.  Our  acceptance  of  Scripture  as 
the  word  of  God  depends,  not  on  its  absolute 
freedom  from  error  of  every  kind,  but  on  our 
recognition  of  God's  voice  in  it.  Criticism  may 
work  its  will  on  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment; it  cannot  take  from  us  the  Christ  they 
embody.  That  figure  is  self-certifying  as  it 
was  to  those  who  knew  Him  while  He  dwelt 
on  earth.  As  a  great  German  critic  whose 
work  was  prematurely  cut  short  has  said  :  "The 
man  who  refers  Christianity  to  Scripture  as  the 
fundamental  witness  of  Christ,  assumes  on  that 
very  account  an  attitude  of  inner  freedom  tow- 
ard its  historical  form,  because  he  has  found 
Christ  in  it,  and  because  he  judges  all  that  is  in 
it  from  this  central  point.  If  we  are  sure  of 
this,  that  Scripture  in  its  entire  contents  wit- 
nesses of  Christ,  then  we  are  no  longer  puzzled 
about  the  worth  of  Scripture,  even  though  here 
or  there  we  meet  with  irregularities  over  which 
we  cannot  make  our  way.     If  we  are  sure  that 


of  the  aver- 
age man. 


Infallibility  159 

God's  Spirit  speaks  to  us  in  Scripture,  then  we 
are  no  longer  timidly  anxious  when  historical 
investigations  into  the  persons  of  the  human 
composers  are  set  on  foot.  The  determining 
fact  abides,  that  the  living  God,  the  God  of  our 
salvation,  in  Scripture  speaks  to  us  of  Christ, 
whoever  be  the  human  author  who  here  or 
there  with  heart  and  hand  has  put  himself  at 
His  service."  ^ 

It  only  remains  that  a  brief  answer  be  given  Difficulties 
to  the  questions  put  by  the  somewhat  puzzled 
average  man.  To  transfer  one's  faith  from  a 
literally  infallible  Scripture  to  an  infallible 
Christ  is  not  an  absolutely  easy  undertaking, 
and  difficulties  arise  in  the  process.  It  has, 
for  example,  been  asked,  "  Can  a  fallible  Scrip- 
ture infallibly  lead  to  Christ  ?  "  "  If  we  have 
no  infallible  record,  we  have  no  guarantee  of 
an  infallible  Christ."  Enough  has  already 
been  said  to  explain  how  a  Scripture,  which  is 
not  in  one  sense  and  for  one  purpose  infallible, 
may  be  infallible  in  another  sense  and  for 
another  purpose.  Enough  has  been  said  to 
show  that  Gospels  of  which  we  cannot  affirm 
absolute  inerrancy  do  yet  set  before  us  a  self- 
verifying  Christ.  The  pilot  who  has  never 
logt  a  ship,  and  who  is  practically  infallible 
1  Gloel,  "  Die  jungste  Kritik,"  p.  96. 


tiayi  reader. 


160     The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

within  his  own  domain,  may  yet  believe  in 
mermaids  and  sea  serpents,  may  never  have 
heard  of  Cromwell  or  Milton  or  Washington, 
and  may  think  brandy  a  cure  for  every  human 
ill. 
Scripture  Again,  it  is  frequently  said,  If  there  is  the 

^iid^edh  slightest  error  in  Scripture,  then  I  must  judge 
the  Chris-  for  mysclf  what  I  am  to  receive,  and  how  am 
I  to  find  out  what  is  true  and  what  is  mislead- 
ing? It  may,  I  think,  fairly  be  replied.  This 
is  precisely  what  every  one  who  reads  the  Bible 
is  already  doing.  And  the  fact  that  men  are 
not  aware  that  they  thus  judge  Scripture  for 
themselves  proves  how  little  serious  considera- 
tion they  have  given  to  the  subject.  Who  is 
at  the  reader's  elbow  as  he  peruses  Exodus  and 
Leviticus  to  tell  him  what  is  of  permanent 
authority  and  what  was  for  the  Mosaic  economy 
only?  Who  whispers  to  us  as  we  read  Genesis 
and  Kings,  This  is  exemplary ;  this  is  not  ? 
Who  sifts  for  us  the  speeches  of  Job  and  en- 
ables us  to  treasure  as  Divine  truth  what  he 
utters  in  one  verse,  while  we  reject  the  next 
as  Satanic  raving?  Who  gives  the  preacher 
authority  and  accuracy  of  aim  to  pounce  on  a 
sound  text  in  Ecclesiastes,  while  wisdom  and 
folly  toss  and  roll  over  one  another  in  confus- 
ingly rapid  and  inextricable  contortions  ?   What 


Infallibility  161 

enables  the  humblest  Christian  to  come  safely 
through  the  cursing  Psalms  and  go  straight  to 
forgive  his  enemy?  What  tells  us  we  may  eat 
things  strangled,  though  the  whole  college  of 
apostles  deliberately  and  expressly  prohibited 
such  eating?  Who  assures  us  we  need  not 
anoint  the  sick  with  oil,  although  in  the  New 
Testament  we  are  explicitly  commanded  to  do 
so?  In  a  word,  how  is  it  that  the  simplest 
reader  can  be  trusted  with  the  Bible  and  can 
be  left  to  find  his  own  spiritual  nourishment 
in  it,  rejecting  almost  as  much  as  he  receives? 
Paul  solves  the  whole  matter  for  us  in  his  bold 
and  exhaustive  words,  "  The  spiritual  man  — 
the  man  who  has  the  spirit  of  Christ  —  judgeth 
all  things."  This,  and  this  only,  is  the  true 
touchstone  of  Scripture  by  which  all  things  are 
tried.  To  use  the  words  of  one  of  the  most 
thoughtful  writers  of  our  time,  "  It  is  the  same 
spirit  which  has  embodied  truth  in  the  Bible 
that  infuses  the  love  of  truth  into  the  Christian; 
and  no  magnetism  gives  more  assurance  of  its 
reality  in  material  things  than  such  sympathy 
gives  in  spiritual,  that  the  sincere  seeker  shall 
ultimately  find  all  such  truth  in  the  Bible  as 
there  is  a  moral  fitness,  or  necessity,  that  he 
should  possess."  1 

1  Myers,  "Catholic  Thoughts,"  p.  132. 


162     The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

How  is  the  If,  then,  it  still  be  asked,  How  is  the  plain 

^oJudqeT  T^^^  to  distinguish?  How  is  the  man  in  the 
street  to  know  what  is  true?  How  can  you 
refer  him  to  the  word  of  God  if  there  are 
statements  in  it  which  may  misinform  him  ? 
the  reply  is,  No  statement  will  mislead  the 
man  who  is  honestly  seeking  his  way  to  God. 
If  it  is  spiritual  guidance  the  man  is  in  search 
of,  then  you  may  refer  him  absolutely  to  the 
Bible.  To  scruple  to  do  so,  because  the  Gos- 
pels disagree  in  their  accounts  of  Christ's  res- 
urrection, or  because,  possibly,  2  Peter  is  a 
forgery,  is  grotesquely  absurd.  If  a  man  de- 
sires to  acquaint  himself  with  the  history  of 
the  ancient  world,  there  are  other  books  to 
which  you  would  more  naturally  refer  him ; 
but  if  he  seeks  enlightenment  regarding  the 
preparation  made  by  history  for  the  coming  of 
Christ,  you  would  refer  him  to  the  Bible.  If 
he  seeks  information  regarding  the  formation 
of  this  globe,  and  the  introduction  of  life  upon 
it,  there  are  works  in  palceontology  which  will 
satisfy  him ;  but  if  he  desires  to  be  impressed 
with  the  relation  of  God  to  the  world  and  its 
life,  you  will  refer  him  to  Genesis.  If  he 
craves  a  knowledge  of  the  times  of  Christ, 
there  are  other  books  he  may  profitably  con- 
sult;   but   if   he  wishes   to  know  Christ,  and 


Infallibility  163 

through  this  ultimate  revelation  to  see  the 
Father,  you  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  In  the 
Gospels  you  will  find  what  you  seek.  It  is 
idle  to  assert  that  if  we  cannot  say  of  each 
clause  of  the  Bible,  "  This  is  infallibly  true," 
we  cannot  refer  to  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of 
God  at  all.  With  the  most  perfect  freedom 
we  can  refer  to  it  every  man  who  is  seeking 
infallible  guidance  to  God.  "Try  to  treat  the" 
volumes  as  a  flawless  chronological  or  scientific 
record,  and  you  will  be  disappointed.  Treat  it 
as  a  means  of  religious  edification,  and  you 
cannot  fail."^ 

1  Snell,  "  Gain  or  Loss,"  p.  27. 


VI 

THE   TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF   THE 
GOSPELS 


VI 


THE   TRUSTWORTHINESS   OF   THE 
GOSPELS 

The  present  and  pressing  need  of  reconsider-   The  critical 


ing  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels  is  too 
obvious  to  call  for  much  comment.  The  need 
arises  from  the  emergence  of  a  new  method  of 
inquiry  and  new  material  for  prosecuting  it. 

The  new  method  is  known  as  historical 
criticism,  —  sometimes  since  Eichhorn's  time 
unhappily  called  "  higher  criticism," — a  method 
which  is  really  not  in  itself  new,  but  is  now 
employed  with  much  greater  vigor  and  exact- 
ness than  in  the  past.  It  is  important  to 
observe  that  this  method  is  inevitable.  The 
popular  suspicion  or  jealousy  of  it  arises  from 
a  misunderstanding  of  its  nature,  its  aims,  its 
instruments.  Sometimes  it  is  even  spoken  of 
as  antagonistic  to  Christianity.  It  is  identified 
with  certain  of  its  manifestations,  and  is  forth- 
with condemned.  But  the  abuse  of  an  instru- 
ment or  method  does  not  nullify  or  condemn 
its  legitimate  use.  The  erroneous  conclusions 
167 


■method. 


168      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

of  scientific  inquiry  can  only  be  corrected  by 
further  and  more  searching  inquiry  of  the  same 
scientific  character.  Criticism  is  not  a  hostile 
force  hovering  round  the  march  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  picking  off  all  loosely  attached 
followers  and  galling  the  main  body;  it  is 
rather  the  highly  trained  corps  of  scouts  and 
skirmishers  thrown  out  on  all  sides  to  ascertain 
in  what  direction  it  is  safe  and  possible  for 
the  Church  to  advance.  Our  attitude  toward 
criticism  should  not  be  that  of  grudging  and 
reluctant  submission  as  to  an  unfortunate  epi- 
demic ;  rather  we  should  welcome  it  as  we 
welcome  convalescence.  It  is  the  convenient 
designation  of  the  most  approved  methods  of 
ascertaining  historical  truth.  It  is  a  process 
of  which  every  inquirer,  more  or  less  con- 
sciously, avails  himself.  Every  living  man 
has  his  own  tests  which  he  applies  to  all  he 
hears  or  reads ;  and  by  these  tests  he  determines 
whether  or  not  belief  is  warranted.  If  a  sailor 
tells  us  he  found  oranges  growing  among  the 
ice-hummocks  of  the  Arctic  circle  we  refuse 
to  believe  him,  because  his  information  is 
tested  and  condemned  by  the  knowledge  we 
already  possess.  If  a  document  professing  to 
belong  to  the  age  of  Queen  Anne  makes  free 
reference   to   electric   lighting,   telephones,   or 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels      169 

pliotography,  we  know  that  its  claim  is  spuri- 
ous. In  short,  every  man  is  necessarily  a 
critic,  and  criticism  as  a  science  collects  and 
applies  all  the  criteria  which  experience  has 
approved  for  the  determination  of  the  dates  of 
documents,  of  their  character  and  credibility, 
and  for  discriminating  between  what  is  to  be 
accepted  as  historical  and  what  must  be  re- 
garded as  fabricated  or  embellished.  Without 
criticism  it  is  impossible  we  should  reach  the 
very  truth  about  the  Gospels  or  any  other 
ancient  documents.  By  allowing  criticism 
within  our  gates,  we  no  doubt  admit  a  treat- 
ment of  the  Gospels  which  some  will  take 
advantage  of  to  get  rid  of  everything  which 
does  not  suit  their  conception  of  Christ  and 
His  teaching.  But  this  is  a  state  of  matters 
we  must  face.  We  must  examine  objections 
and  difficulties  in  detail  with  candor,  patience, 
and  a  determination  to  reach  the  truth.  How 
do  those  who  decline  the  severest  scrutiny 
propose  to  find  what  the  Gospels  actually  are? 

The  novelty  of  the  material  furnished  to  the   Critical 

•  ,•         £  J.'  •  J.   •!  •  J.1  J.1        material. 

critic  01  our  time  is  more  striking  than  the 
novelty  of  the  method.  For  the  knowledge 
of  the  past  the  critic  is  now  provided  with  an 
apparatus  which  has  never  before  been  within 
his  reach.     Archaeology,  history,  anthropology, 


170     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

psychology,  —  each  makes  its  distinct  contribu- 
tion toward  the  ascertainment  of  the  real  con- 
dition and  events  of  long  past  periods  in  the 
life  of  man. 
Archseoioyi-  Archaeology  brings  its  quota,  exhuming  the 
terial.  ancient  world  which  so  long  has  lain  buried  out 

of  sight  and  knowledge,  and  bringing  a  revivi- 
fied past  before  the  mind.  Inscriptions,  monu- 
ments, excavated  cities,  thousands  of  papyri 
from  Egyptian  tombs  and  ruined  villages  and 
crocodile  cemeteries,  the  brick  libraries  of  the 
valley  of  the  Euphrates,  put  in  the  hands  of 
scholars  material  for  the  reconstruction  of  the 
ancient  world  such  as  never  before  has  been 
available.  We  are  thus  furnished  with  a  new 
means  of  testing  the  accuracy  and  ascertaining 
the  true  character  of  parts  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  discovery  of  legends  very  similar 
to  those  which  occupy  the  early  chapters  of 
Genesis  cannot  but  be  used  for  the  truer  under- 
standing of  these  records.  The  facts  brought 
to  notice  by  pala3ontology,  and  even  the  in- 
scribed monuments  of  ancient  races,  compel  us 
considerably  to  expand  the  chronology  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  while  the  doctrine  of  evolution  suggests 
modifications  of  our  idea  of  creation  and  the 
date  of  man's  appearance  on  earth. 

In  the  study  of  the  Gospels  we  have  now  to 


The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels      171 

take  into  account  a  good  deal  that  is  either  Compara- 
newly  discovered  or  that  has  hitherto  been  dis-  gion. 
regarded.  Miracles  have  found  a  new  foe  in 
evolution,  which  demands  that  every  event  in 
history  be  referred  to  causes  previously  exist- 
ing in  the  world.  No  interruption  of  the  rigid 
chain  of  cause  and  effect  is  permissible:  no 
irruption  from  the  outside.  This  prohibition 
of  the  miraculous  is  buttressed  by  the  examina- 
tion of  the  biographies  of  saints  and  founders 
of  religion;  for  this  has  brought  to  light  that 
not  to  Jesus  only  have  miracles  been  ascribed 
by  enthusiastic  followers,  but  to  Buddha  and 
to  the  Bab,  and  even  to  Thomas  a  Becket 
and  St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  and  many  besides. 
The  comparative  study  of  miracles  has  been 
introduced  and  has  necessitated  a  revised  de- 
fence. 

Again,  anthropologists  have  taught  us  that  Anthro- 
at  a  certain  stage  of  civilization  all  disease  is  ^^  °^^' 
referred  to  demoniacal  possession,  that  at  a 
somewhat  higher  stage  certain  diseases,  such  as 
epilepsy,  neurasthenia,  and  mania,  are  so  re- 
ferred, and  that  in  various  countries,  both  in 
our  own  and  other  times,  exorcism  is  practised. 
We  cannot  simply  put  these  facts  aside  and 
aver  that  the  demoniacal  possession  spoken  of 
in  the  Gospels  belongs  to  a  different  category. 


172     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Other  sa- 
cred books. 


Necessary 
inferences. 


Criticism 
cannot  be 
burred  out. 


The  publication  of  the  sacred  books  of  other 
religions  has  had  its  effect,  for  in  them  we  find 
stronger  claims  to  inspiration  and  infallibility 
than  we  find  in  our  own  Scriptures.  And  it  is 
quite  fairly  and  pertinently  asked:  "How  can 
such  claims  be  disproved  by  arguments  which 
are  not  equally  applicable  if  urged  by  a  Hindu 
against  similar  pretensions  which  may  be  raised 
on  behalf  of  the  Bible  ?  " 

Confronted,  then,  with  these  various  facts, 
the  candid  student  cannot  but  ask  whether  our 
Gospels  belong  to  the  class  of  somewhat  un- 
trustworthy and  irresponsible  biographies  which 
have  obscured  the  life  of  our  greatest  men  ; 
whether  they  are  just  on  the  same  plane  as  the 
records  which  embalm  the  memory  of  Buddha 
and  the  Bab,  and  must  be  subject  to  the  same 
deductions  if  we  are  to  reach  the  truth;  or 
whether  they  carry  in  themselves  notes  of  truth 
which  command  our  confidence  and  incline  us 
to  believe,  if  not  every  event  or  word  as  re- 
corded, yet  the  truthfulness  of  the  portrait  of 
Jesus  they  present. 

To  turn  this  whole  inquiry  aside  by  the  sim- 
ple affirmation  that  the  Gospels  are  inspired, 
and  are  therefore  infallibly  accurate  in  every 
detail,  is  in  the  highest  degree  mischievous.  If 
infallibly  accurate,  then  they  need  not  shrink 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Gfospels      173 

from  the  keenest  criticism.  But  none  of  our 
Gospels  professes  to  be  infallible  or  even  in- 
spired. Only  one  of  them  tells  us  how  its 
writer  obtained  his  information,  and  that  was 
by  careful  inquiry  at  the  proper  sources.  But 
even  though  all  of  them  claimed  inspiration, 
this  would  not  give  us  an  answer  to  our  ques- 
tion. The  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  of  God  does 
not  impart  omniscience  to  the  human  mind, 
does  not  even  impart  knowledge  of  human  his- 
tory or  science.  It  is  only  by  examining  the 
Gospels  themselves  that  we  can  discover  how 
far  they  are  trustworthy.  To  attempt  to  bar 
out  criticism  by  affirming  inspiration  is  a  futile 
enterprise.  The  day  for  that  is  past.  You 
cannot  now  do  it.  Men  will  for  themselves 
inquire  and  will  test  the  accuracy  of  the  Gos- 
pels because  they  are  resolved  to  know  the 
truth;  for  let  us  make  no  mistake,  the  freest 
inquiry  is  the  only  possible  path  to  sound  con- 
viction. God's  world  is  a  world  of  progress  ; 
the  tide  is  now  flowing,  and  he  who  stiffly  clings 
to  his  old  moorings  will  inevitably  be  swamped. 
We  must  obey  God's  call  and  without  fear  let 
truth  carry  us  where  it  leads. 

The  importance  of  having  an  inspired  record  Results  of 
consists   in  two  of  its  results.     (1)  We  have  ^"'P'"'''^'''''- 
the   ministry   of   Jesus   recorded   in  the  same 


174     The  Bible  :  Its  Origin  and  Nature 

spirit  in  which  it  was  enacted,  by  men  sympa- 
thetic with  His  mind  and  intention.  We  may 
be  sure  that  those  features  of  His  life  are 
recorded  which  He  Himself  considered  signifi- 
cant. We  are  not  told  the  color  of  His  hair  or 
the  kind  of  clothes  He  wore ;  physical  details 
are  absent,  and  the  writers  would  be  surprised 
to  learn  how  much  the  modern  mind  has  made 
of  trifles.  But  their  inspiration  assures  us 
that  if  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  this  will  be 
brought  out ;  and  if  He  proclaimed  deliverance 
from  sin,  that  will  be  recorded.  And  (2)  it 
assures  us  that  there  is  no  intentional  deception 
in  their  narrative.  They  present  Christ  as 
they  believed  Him  to  be.  Error  there  may 
be,  but  not  deliberate  misrepresentation.  The 
writers,  conscious  of  the  greatness  of  their 
theme,  cannot  but  have  desired  to  ascertain 
the  truth.  The  very  form  of  their  narrative, 
its  freedom  from  all  exclamatory  or  personal 
matter,  is  proof  that  subjectivity  was  at  its 
minimum  in  them,  that  they  were  conscious  of 
a  responsibility  to  the  public  and  sought  to 
discharge  it  worthily. 
We  live  in  a  No  time,  then,  need  be  spent  in  exhibiting  the 
critica  age.  ^^^pj^gj^^e  importance  of  determining  whether  and 
how  far  we  can  trust  the  Gospels  ;  still  less  in 
deprecating  or  depreciating  criticism,  the  only 


The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels      175 

instrument  whose  employment  gives  any  prom- 
ise of  our  reaching  the  truth.  We  might  as 
well  try  to  lift  ourselves  into  the  age  of  Homer 
as  try  to  breathe  an  air  not  impregnated  with 
criticism.  The  classics  have  been  subjected  to 
quite  as  severe  an  ordeal  as  the  New  Testament, 
and,  as  a  great  Greek  scholar  has  said,  "Against 
this  onslaught,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
average  scholar  has  taken  refuge  in  deafness, 
or  looked  on  with  sympathetic  hope,  while 
Herbst  does  his  magnificent  gladiator-work  in 
defence  of  everything  he  believed  in  the  sixties 
—  the  time,  as  he  plaintively  says,  when  he 
felt,  in  opening  his  Thucydides,  that  he  was 
'  resting  in  Abraham's  bosom.' "  For  the  in- 
telligent student  of  the  New  Testament  the 
"  sixties  "  with  their  ingenuous  methods  are  as 
irrevocably  past  as  our  own  childhood,  and  from 
the  unquestioning  security  of  "  Abraham's 
bosom,"  we  have  passed,  for  the  time  at  least, 
into  the  cleansing  fires  of  the  critical  purgatory. 

But  here  again  two  cautions  must  be  added.   But  the 

^1^   r\         1  ••  •j.'-  r  r   '        £    ^^      ideal  critic 

(1)  (Jur  hope  is   in   criticism    free,    fair,   lull.   ^^^^^  ^^^  yg^ 
But  we  have  yet  to  search  with  a  lantern  for  (^PP^'^^ed. 
the  ideal  critic.     Even  the  most  circumspect  of 
those  who  at  present  influence  opinion  cannot  be 
acquitted  of  an  occasional  craving  for  novelty 
or  of  accepting  possibilities  as  probabilities  or 


176     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

even  as  certainties.  As  the  savage  is  not  rated 
as  a  man  until  he  can  produce  a  few  scalps  or 
heads,  so  the  Privat-Docent  or  budding  theo- 
logue  hopes  to  win  his  spurs  by  fleshing  his 
sword  on  some  well-established  belief  and  is 
not  greatly  concerned  about  the  finality  or 
truth  of  his  discoveries.  This  is  accountable 
for  much  ill-considered  writing  and  an  exasper- 
ating waste  of  time  for  any  one  who  tries  to 
keep  pace  with  critical  literature.  But,  what  is 
worse,  it  leads  to  partisanship  and  one-sidedness. 
Criticism  (2)  A  second  caution  seems  continually  dis- 

^\urtime.    regarded.     This  age  is  characterized  by  criti- 
/i  cism.     A  lack   of   originality  turns   the   mind 

keenly  back  upon  the  work  done  by  former 
ages.  But  too  often  critics  speak  as  if  their 
methods  were  unknown  to  the  ancient  world 
and  that  any  statement  was  allowed  to  pass, 
and  no  laws  of  evidence  recognized.  We  hear 
too  mucli  of  "  the  trained  historical  critic,"  and 
he  is  so  flaunted  as  to  reflect  discredit  on  the 
credulity  of  the  ancient  world.  The  result  is 
that  we  judge  ancient  writers  with  a  precon- 
ceived idea  that  they  were  ready  to  accept  and 
give  currency  to  idle  tales.  They  are  damaged 
from  the  outset  by  this  prejudice,  and  all  that 
is  extraordinary  in  their  narrative  is  set  down 
to  their  credulity. 


The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Cfospels      177 

But,  while  unquestionably  criticism  is  culti-  But  cuiti- 
vated  now  as  it  never  has  been  before,  it  should  ^chH&timi  ' 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  grounds  of  rational  '^"^/s- 
belief  are  expressly  laid  down  in  the  "  Rhetoric  " 
of  Aristotle  and  in  the  speeches  of  Demosthenes, 
who  directs  the  attention  of  the  judges  to  the 
distinction  between  circumstantial  evidence,  the 
testimony  of  eye-witnesses,  and  mere  proba- 
bility. This  was  a  necessary  result  of  legal 
procedure  in  such  courts  as  those  of  Greece  and 
Rome.  And  how  well  the  grounds  of  trust- 
worthiness were  understood  by  historians  two 
centuries  before  our  Gospels  were  written  is 
illustrated  in  the  preface  of  Polybius,  who 
states  that  he  begins  his  history  from  the  year 
220  B.C.,  "because  the  period  thus  embraced 
would  fall  partly  in  the  life  of  my  parents, 
partly  in  my  own  ;  and  thus  I  should  be  able  to 
speak  as  eye-witness  of  some  of  the  events  and 
of  others  from  the  information  of  eye-witnesses. 
To  go  farther  back  and  write  the  report  of  a 
report,  traditions  at  second  or  third  hand 
seemed  to  be  unsatisfactory  either  with  a  view 
to  giving  clear  impressions  or  making  sound 
statements."  And  no  one  can  read  Polybius 
without  recognizing  his  bright  intelligence,  his 
perception  of  the  snares  of  the  historian,  his 
critical  discernment  of  the  sources  he  may  safely 


178      The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

use.  Take,  for  example,  this  description  of 
two  of  his  predecessors  :  "  I  do  not  suppose 
that  these  writers  have  intentionally  stated  what 
was  false  ;  but  I  think  that  they  are  much  in 
the  same  state  of  mind  as  men  in  love.  Par- 
tisanship and  complete  prepossession  made 
Philinus  think  that  all  the  actions  of  the  Car- 
thaginians were  characterized  by  wisdom,  cour- 
age, and  honor,  those  of  the  Romans  by  the 
reverse.  Fabius  thought  the  exact  opposite. 
Now  in  other  relations  of  life  one  would  hesi- 
tate to  exclude  such  warmth  of  sentiment ;  for 
a  good  man  ought  to  be  loyal  to  his  friends  and 
patriotic  to  his  country;  ought  to  be  at  one  with 
his  friends  in  their  hatreds  and  likings.  But 
directly  a  man  assumes  the  moral  attitude  of  an 
historian,  he  must  forget  all  such  considerations. 
For,  as  a  living  creature  is  rendered  quite  use- 
less if  deprived  of  its  eyes,  so  if  you  take  truth 
from  history,  what  is  left  is  but  an  idle,  unprof- 
itable tale."  It  may  be  added  that  the  latest 
editor  of  Polybius  makes  the  following  signifi- 
cant remark  —  which  is  not  without  application 
to  our  subject :  "  That  Polybius  thoroughly 
knew  and  carefully  recorded  the  facts  about 
which  he  wrote  might  seem  a  truism  hardly 
worth  stating,  if  it  were  not  that  it  is  so 
wantonly    forgotten    whenever    his    authority 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels      179 

comes    into    collision   with   the    last   invented 
theory."  ^ 

The  critic  must,  therefore,  be  on  his  guard   ^ere  the 

.  .  evaiK/elists 

against  unduly  widening  the  interval  between  credulous? 
modern  and  ancient  methods  and  against  the 
presumption  that  the  writers  of  our  Gospels 
questioned  not  at  all,  but  set  down  all  they 
heard.  No  doubt  it  remains  to  ask  how  far  this 
regard  to  sufficient  evidence,  which  is  found 
in  some  ancient  writers,  penetrated  the  minds 
of  those  who  compiled  our  Gospels.  But  cer- 
tainly the  authors  of  the  third  and  fourth  Gos- 
pels appreciated  the  value  of  eye-witness ;  and 
by  their  explicit  manifestation  of  this  apprecia- 
tion they  reveal  not  merely  their  individual 
estimate  of  its  value  but  the  sense  of  it  cher- 
ished by  the  community.  In  a  word,  if  we 
would  reach  the  truth,  we  must  not  start  with 
the  wholly  unwarranted  assumption  that  the 
Gospel  writers  were  credulous  and  incompetent, 
ready  to  accept  all  they  heard  and  to  set  down 
as  fact  whatever  they  fancied  would  magnify 
their  hero. 

In  proceeding,  then,  to  inquire  into  the  trust-  Object  of  the 
worthiness  of  the  Gospels,  it  must  first  of  all 
be    clearly  apprehended   that   by  trustworthi- 
ness we  do  not  mean  perfect  accuracy  in  every 
1  Strachan-Davidson,  "Polybius,"  p.  x. 


180     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

detail,  but  a  faithful  fulfilment  of  their  pur- 
pose to  perpetuate  the  true  image  of  Christ. 
It  has  been  over  and  over  again  demonstrated 
that  minute  accuracy  cannot  be  claimed  for  the 
Gospels.  What  we  contend  for  is  that  these 
documents  preserve  a  true  picture  of  Him  ivhose 
ministry  they  describe.  A  nibbling  criticism  has 
done  much,  and  may  do  more,  to  eat  away  some 
elements  in  the  Gospel  story,  but  the  question 
is.  Can  it  so  eat  it  away  as  to  leave  us  without 
a  sufficient  knowledge  of  Christ  ?  Suppose  we 
yield  the  stories  of  the  childhood,  suppose  we 
admit  —  as  indeed  we  must  —  that  some  of  the 
things  recorded  are  questionable,  it  remains  to 
ask,  Is  it  within  the  possible  achievement  of 
criticism  to  obliterate  the  image  of  Christ  pre- 
sented in  the  Gospels?  The  object  of  the  Gos- 
pels is  to  preserve  this  image.  The  picture 
may  be  photographic,  or  it  may  be  impression- 
ist :  in  any  case  it  is  sufficient  if  it  conveys  to 
us  an  idea  of  Jesus  similar  to  that  which  His 
associates  received.  You  do  not  put  a  Titian 
or  a  Raphael  or  a  Vandyke  under  the  micro- 
scope and  pronounce  the  picture  worthless  when 
you  find  a  crack  in  the  paint  or  a  flaw  in  the 
canvas  ;  you  don't  throw  it  aside  as  inaccurate 
or  misleading  because  a  fold  of  the  dress  is  in 
bad  drawing  or  because  the  painter  has  set  a 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Grospels      181 

jewel  where  it  was  never  worn ;  neither  is  our 
esteem  of  the  Gospels  lessened  by  finding  in 
their  narrative  events  which  perhaps  never 
happened.  The  Gospels  perfectly  discharge 
their  function  if  they  present  us  with  a  Christ 
who  is  self-authenticating  as  the  Revealer  of 
God;  if  they  show  us  how  He  claimed  to  be 
the  Christ  and  how  He  made  good  this  claim, 
if  they  reproduce  a  figure  or  personality  which 
accounts  for  the  Church  and  the  Church's  faith. 

The  reasons  urged  by  criticism  for  our  not  Difficulties 
accepting  everything  in  the  Gospels  just  as  it  criticism. 
stands  are  by  no  means  groundless.  On  the 
contrary,  they  are  such  as  cannot  fail  to  emerge 
on  sincere  and  thorough  inquiry.  The  diffi- 
culties which  one  encounters  may  be  distributed 
under  four  heads:  (1)  The  general  insecurity 
of  oral  tradition.  (2)  The  tendency  to  admit 
what  is  mythical  into  the  history  of  a  hero  and 
especially  of  the  Christ.  (3)  The  likelihood 
or  possibility  that  the  writers  should  allow 
their  own  opinions  to  color  their  statements. 
It  has  also  (4)  been  observed  that  the  three 
synoptists  not  infrequently  disagree ;  and  this 
is  especially  true  of  some  of  the  more  impor- 
tant parts  of  the  narrative,  such  as  that  which 
recounts  the  resurrection. 

1.    We  must  take  into  account  the  insecurity 


182     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

Insecurity  of  oral  tradition  and  its  liability  in  the  course 
tradition.  ^^  jears  to  become  seriously  adulterated.  The 
circumstance  that  the  Gospels  were  not  written 
until  nearly  or  quite  a  generation  had  elapsed 
since  the  events,  and  that  during  the  interval 
the  incidents  of  the  life  of  Jesus  had  been 
orally  handed  down,  can  scarcely  fail  to  have 
had  some  perceptible  result  in  the  character  of 
the  Gospels  as  we  now  have  them.  If  the  sub- 
stance of  them  was  the  common  property  of  the 
Christian  Church  during  a  whole  generation, 
and  if,  during  that  period,  every  man  was  telling 
the  story  to  his  neighbor  according  to  his  own 
knowledge  or  fancy,  if  parents  were  crumbling 
the  solid  food  for  the  use  of  their  children,  and 
preachers  adapting  the  stories  to  the  aptitudes 
of  their  audiences,  is  it  not  probable  that  the 
facts  would  come  to  be  in  some  measure  adul- 
terated by  fiction  ?  As  Orello  Cone  says  : 
"  That  the  tradition  of  Jesus,  in  the  absence  of 
a  fixed  and  definite  form,  should  have  under- 
gone no  modification  in  passing  through  the 
media  which  it  traversed  before  it  was  recorded 
in  the  Gospels,  is  incredible  to  any  one  who 
regards  the  conditions  from  an  historical  or 
psychological  point  of  view." 

This  state  of  matters  is  at  first  sight  alarm- 
ing.    But  certain  considerations  reassure  us. 


The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Grospels      183 

(1)  Too  much  may  very  easily  be  made  of  the  Record  not 
distance  in  time  between  the  events  and  their  neouswUh 
record.  A  second  generation  is  sometimes  ^'"^"'^^^ 
spoken  of  as  if  it  arrived  all  at  once,  and  in  a 
day  displaced  and  abolished  the  first  genera- 
tion, like  changing  guard  at  a  military  post,  or 
like  the  sudden  displacement  of  day  by  night 
in  the  tropics.  But  many  persons  who  had 
seen  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  and  Galilee  must  have 
survived  till  the  end  of  the  century.  Many 
must  have  been  of  an  age  to  check  the  romanc- 
ing of  the  evangelists,  if  such  there  was,  by 
their  own  knowledge.  And  although  our  Gos- 
pels were  not  written  till  some  considerable 
time  had  elapsed,  their  sources  were  probably 
current  much  earlier.  Moreover,  remoteness 
in  time  is  often  counterbalanced  by  the  proba- 
bility of  the  event  and  its  congruity  with  the 
narrative  of  which  it  forms  a  part.  The  secu- 
lar historian  accepts  testimony  which  has  only 
come  to  light  long  after  the  event.  Thus,  in 
recording  how  Lady  Nelson  left  the  room  when 
Nelson  admiringly  spoke  of  "  dear  Lady  Hamil- 
ton," his  biographer,  Mahan,  says,  "  Though 
committed  to  paper  so  many  years  later  [in 
point  of  fact,  forty-five]  the  incident  is  just  one 
of  those  that  stick  to  the  memory  and  probably 
occurred  substantially  as  told."     And  of  an- 


184      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

otlier  occurrence  the  same  writer  says,  "This  tri- 
fling incident,  transpiring  as  it  now  does  for  the 
first  time,  after  nearly  seventy  years  .  .  .  bears 
its  own  mute  evidence."  And  the  significant 
utterance  of  Principal  Drummond  of  Oxford  is 
here  relevant :  "  If  we  suppose  that  the  Synop- 
tic Gospels  were  written  from  forty  to  sixty 
years  after  the  time  of  Christ,  still  they  were 
based  on  earlier  material,  and  even  after  forty 
years  the  memory  of  characteristic  sayings  may 
be  perfectly  clear.  ...  I  have  not  a  particularly 
good  memory,  but  I  can  recall  many  sayings 
that  were  uttered  forty  or  even  fifty  years  ago, 
and  in  some  cases  can  vividly  recollect  the 
scene." 
The  Gospels  (2)  Another  common  error  is  to  speak  of  our 
popular  tra-  Gospels  as  if,  not  being  written  till  a  genera- 
dition.  t,ion  after  the  events,  they  were,  therefore,  the 

mere  careless  transcript  of  a  popular  tradition 
adulterated  by  forty  years  of  oral  transmission, 
and  modified  by  the  exigencies,  idiosyncrasies, 
and  caprice  of  individual  narrators.  Whereas, 
on  the  contrary,  Luke  expressly  tells  us  that 
he  had  made  it  his  aim  to  get  behind  this  popu- 
lar tradition  and  to  draw  his  narrative  from 
the  original  source,  the  eye-witnesses.  Of 
Mark's  Gospel  it  is  generally  believed  that 
something  similar  may  be  said,  and  that  it  rep- 


eye-witness. 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels      185 

resents  not  the  popular  tradition,  but  the  remi- 
niscences of  Peter.  In  other  words,  it  is  not  to 
be  assumed,  as  it  so  commonly  is  assumed,  that 
because  a  Gospel  is  not  written,  say  until  the 
year  70  a.d.,  therefore,  it  is  the  transcript  of 
the  popular  tradition  of  that  period,  the  result 
of  a  generation  of  distortion  and  adulteration 
of  history.  On  the  contrary,  it  may  be  written 
for  the  very  purpose  of  correcting  such  popular 
misconceptions. 

(3)  We  must  take  into  account  the  fact  that  Value  of 
one  of  our  Gospels  professes  to  be  from  the 
hand  of  t^n  eye-witness.  Of  all  means  of 
ascertaining  historical  truth,  the  most  satis- 
factory is  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness. 
An  eye-witness  may  be  confused,  as  in  com- 
plicated political  affairs  or  in  a  great  battle  ; 
he  may  be  biassed,  or  his  memory  may  be 
treacherous,  or  he  may  have  in  view  some 
other  end  than  that  of  merely  recording  what 
took  place.  But  although  an  eye-witness  may 
err,  the  presumption  is  always  in  his  favor,  and 
his  account  is  received  until  proved  erroneous. 
Thus  —  to  make  use  again  of  the  biography 
already  alluded  to  —  Mrs.  St.  George,  mother 
of  Archbishop  Trench,  records  in  her  journal 
that  on  one  occasion  she  saw  Nelson  under  the 
influence  of  wine.     And  on  this  entry  Nelson's 


186      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

biographer  remarks  :  "  However  much  to  be 
deplored,  such  an  occurrence  is  not  so  impos- 
sible as  to  invalidate  the  testimony  of  an  eye- 
witness, even  in  a  man  of  Nelson's  well-estab- 
lished habitual  abstemiousness,  which  indeed 
his  health  necessitated." 
Fourth  Now  one  of  our  Gospels  expressly  claims  to 

claims  to  be  ^^  irom  the  hand  oi  one  who  saw  and  was  a 
eye-witness,  p^rt  of  what  he  describes.  In  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel we  not  only  find  the  sworn  evidence  of  an 
eye-witness  in  regard  to  one  astonishing  circum- 
stance,—  the  issuing  of  blood  and  water  from 
the  pierced  side  of  the  crucified,  -r- "  He  that 
saw  it  bear  record  and  his  record  is  true  ;  " 
but  the  whole  Gospel  is  vouched  for  as  the 
work  of  an  eye-witness  by  the  appended  note: 
"This  [viz.  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved]  is 
the  disciple  who  testifieth  of  these  things  and 
wrote  these  things,  and  we  know  that  his  testi- 
mony is  true."  For  my  own  part  I  have  not 
the  audacity  to  disregard  this  express  affirma- 
tion. .Whether  the  order  of  events  in  this 
Gospel  is  the  actual  order,  whether  the  dis- 
courses are  recorded  as  delivered,  what  lib- 
erties have  been  taken  with  the  material, 
these  are  other  and  subordinate  questions ; 
but  that  those  who  first  published  the  Gospel 
knew  it  to  be  from  the  hand  of  the  Apostle 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels      187 

John,  I  have  no  doubt.  When  it  was  written, 
the  date  at  which  John  began  to  put  in  writing 
that  which  filled  his  life,  cannot  be  ascertained. 
Probably  much  of  it  was  written  long  before  its 
publication.  But  the  inevitable  meaning  of  the 
note  is,  that  the  Apostle  John  was  not  only 
the  source  or  guarantor  of  the  tradition  which 
is  perpetuated  in  the  Gospel,  but  that  he  act- 
ually wrote  it.  The  attempted  evasions  of  this 
plain  statement  can  scarcely  be  taken  seriously. 

As  countervailing  this  express  affirmation,  or  Evidence 
at  any  rate  as  obscuring  the  mode  in  which  the  l^^^lls^^^"'^' 
material  has  been   treated,  there  is  of  course  claim. 
much  that  must  be  taken  into  account.     It  is 
a  different  Christ  that  is  here  represented,  it  is 
said.     But  this  is  a  difficulty  decisively  set  aside 
by  Christendom,  which  has  always  found  it  easy 
to  form  one  consistent  portrait  from  the  four 
accounts.     Or  we  are  told  that  the  author  was 
a  philosopher,  not  a  fisherman.    Would  any  one 
but  a  fisherman  have  told  us  the  exact  number 
of  his    catch,  one    hundred    and    fifty-three? 
Even  Dr.   Evelyn  Abbott  finds   in  this   num- 
ber   mysterious    allusions   to    the    Church    as 
evolved   from    the    Law   and   the   Spirit,   and  " 
so   forth.     Did    Dr.    Abbott   ever   know  of  a 
fisherman  who   did    not    count    his   take   and 
loudly  proclaim    its  number  if  it  was   large? 


188     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

"VVlio  but  a  boatman  would  have  given  us 
that  complicated  arrangement  of  boats  in  the 
sixth  chapter,  to  account  for  the  transfer  of  our 
Lord's  audience  from  one  side  of  the  lake  to 
the  other,  a  transfer  for  which  there  was  no 
possible  necessity  if  the  author  was  not  writing 
the  fact  as  it  happened,  but  freely  inventing  ? 
Memorable  (4)  When  we  allow  for  the  lapse  of  time 
the  events,  between  the  events  and  their  record,  we  must 
also  allow  for  the  extraordinary  and  memorable 
character  of  the  material.  The  character  of 
Jesus,  it  will  on  all  hands  be  admitted,  was  so 
unique  and  impressive  that  even  if  His  associ- 
ates could  not  present  the  whole  of  it  in  all  its 
aspects,  yet  they  were  likely  to  retain  very 
clearly  in  their  minds  some  main  features  of  it. 
Napoleon  was  a  man  of  whom  we  have  very 
diverse  details  handed  down  to  us  by  his  officers 
and  members  of  his  household  and  court,  yet 
the  general  impression  he  makes  and  the  idea 
commonly  held  of  his  character  may  be  said  to 
be  uniform.  In  the  case  of  our  Lord  inadequate 
representation  was  likely  enough,  erroneous  rep- 
resentation not  so  likely.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  most  striking  scenes  and  incidents  of  His 
life.  Such  things  make  at  once  an  ineffaceable 
impression.  Who  that  saw  the  paralytic  let 
down  through  the  roof  was  at  all  likely  to  for- 


The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels      189 

get  the  scene  ?  And,  when  the  whole  public 
life  was  of  this  striking  kind  and  the  death  of 
so  conspicuous  and  impressive  a  character,  mis- 
take was  not  so  likely  as  with  a  commonplace, 
ordinary,  uneventful  existence. 

But  it  is,  as  I  have  said,  mainly  the  person-  Rapid 
ality  and  general  features  of  Christ  and  His  marvels. 
ministry  we  need  to  know  and  seek  to  know, 
and  the  admitted  impressiveness  of  this  charac- 
ter must  be  taken  into  account.  Dr.  Abbott 
has  been  at  great  pains  to  illustrate  the  untrust- 
worthiness  of  the  Gospels  from  the  untrust- 
worthiness  of  the  records  of  the  life  and  death 
of  Thomas  a  Becket.  Some  of  these  accounts 
were  written  within  five  years  of  his  martyrdom, 
and  many  of  the  miracles  recorded  were  set 
down  in  writing  at  the  very  time  of  their  sup- 
posed occurrence,  and  yet  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that,  as  Dr.  Abbott  says,  "portentous 
falsehoods  "  have  crept  in,  and  that  even  eye- 
witnesses fall  into  astonishing  errors.  And  Dr. 
Percy  Gardner  calls  attention  to  the  analogous 
fact  that  in  the  course  of  the  half-century  which 
followed  the  death  of  St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  "  his 
legend  went  on  growing  and  changing,  forming 
round  itself  a  larger  and  larger  halo  of  super- 
natural power  and  glory,  and  adapting  itself  to 
the  fortunes  of  the  Franciscan  Society." 


190      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Does  not 
obscure  im- 
pression 
made  by 
character. 


Especially 
impression 
upon  simple 
minds 


unblurred 
by  previous 
impressions. 


But  these  arguments  only  serve  to  bring  out 
how  powerless  such  legends  are  to  dull  the  im- 
pression made  by  the  man  round  whom  they 
cling.  Notwithstanding  this  accumulation  of 
fictitious  excrescence,  the  characters  of  Becket 
and  of  Francis  stand  out  clearly.  How  much 
more  is  this  the  case  with  the  transcendently 
powerful  and  impressive  character  of  Jesus. 
The  impression  He  made  on  those  who  com- 
panied  with  Him  was  unique,  an  impression 
not  likely  to  be  dulled  by  time,  an  impression 
made  upon  many. 

Account  must  also  be  taken  of  the  character 
and  circumstances  of  those  who  received  this 
impression.  It  is  sometimes  objected  to  them, 
as  it  was  by  the  pedants  of  the  Sanhedrin,  that 
they  were  unlearned  and  ignorant  men.  But 
this  very  characteristic  rendered  them  more 
susceptible  of  pure  and  unbiassed  impression, 
an  impression  impossible  or  not  so  likely  in 
men  who  already  had  definite  opinions  and  pre- 
possessions. They  were  the  "babes,"  on  the 
tabula  rasa  of  whose  open  and  uninscribed  minds 
Jesus  could  imprint  His  influence. 

As  an  eloquent  writer  has  said :  "  With  the 
man  who  lives  a  life  full  of  bustling  energy  im- 
pression overlays  impression,  till  all  is  blurred 
and  confused.     But  in  the  life  of  a  peasant  im- 


The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Crospels      191 

pressions  are  so  rare  that  they  assume  abnormal 
vividness  ;  and  thus  a  certain  event  or  incident, 
which  at  the  time  seemed  extraordinary,  is  an 
indelible  spot  of  light  in  the  gray  gloom  of 
many  monotonous  and  narrow  years.  The  men 
who  saw  most  of  Christ  were  of  this  order. 
The  most  thrilling  hour  they  had  ever  known 
was  that  in  which  Christ  first  addressed  them. 
In  many  cases  their  meeting  with  Christ  had 
been  associated  with  some  tragic  or  impressive 
incident  which  they  were  not  likely  to  forget  — 
the  threatened  death  of  a  parent,  the  recovery 
from  sickness  of  a  friend,  the  recall  to  sanity  of 
a  demented  child.  .  .  .  The  wings  of  wonder 
had  hovered  over  the  gray  lives  of  these  men 
for  a  day  and  a  night,  their  hearts,  their  imagi- 
nations, had  been  strangely  stirred.  Was  it 
likely  that  they  could  forget  ?  "  ^ 

2.  The  known  tendency  to  admit  what  is  Mythical 
mythical  into  the  account  given  of  any  hero  ^"  ^^^^' 
naturally  excites  suspicion  that  something  of 
the  kind  may  have  happened  in  the  case  of  our 
Gospels.  The  narrative  of  Jesus  ran  the  risk 
of  being  adulterated  by  the  tendency  to  ascribe 
to  Him  every  marvellous  quality  and  action 
which  had  been  ascribed  to  the  heroes  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  and  especially  to  relate  of 
1  Dawson,  "  Life  of  Christ." 


192     The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

Jesus,  as  accomplished  facts,  all  that  the  proph- 
ets had  foretold  of  the  Messiah.  In  the  Old 
Testament  they  found  certain  actions  and  at- 
tributes ascribed  to  the  Messiah;  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah,  therefore  all  those  actions  and 
attributes  must  have  been  manifested  by 
Him. 
Applied  to  This  line  of  criticism  and  the  material  it 
affords  were  thoroughly  exploited,  and  with 
consummate  ability  and  knowledge,  by  Strauss. 
And  it  maintains  its  hold  on  some  of  the  fore- 
most living  critics.  Holtzmann,  for  example, 
maintains  that  although  in  details  it  may  be 
difficult  always  to  lay  one's  finger  on  the  Old 
Testament  reminiscence  which  reappears  in  the 
Gospels,  yet  the  support  which  a  legendary 
representation  has  in  the  events  of  the  actual 
life  of  Jesus  can  be  showrt.  And  Dr.  Percy 
Gardner,  in  his  "  Historic  View  of  the  New 
Testament,"  has  the  following :  "  When  the 
first  missionaries  went  to  preach  in  the  towns 
of  Judsea,  the  commonest  objection  which  they 
would  meet  to  the  proclamation  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  would  be  that  the  life  of  the  Master, 
His  birth,  and  His  death  did  not  conform  to 
the  prophetic  writings.  How  could  the  Mes- 
siah be  born  in  Galilee  ?  How  could  He  fail  to 
be  of  the  family  of  David  ?     He  must,  like  the 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels      193 

prophet  of  Isaiah,  be  silent  in  the  presence  of 
His  accusers  ;  He  must,  like  the  King  in  Zecha- 
riah,  come  riding  upon  an  ass.  His  garments 
must  have  been  seized  and  divided  among  His 
enemies,  according  to  the  words  of  the  twenty- 
second  Psalm.  He  must  have  made  His  grave 
with  the  rich,  and  so  forth.  Now  by  far  the 
easiest  way  of  meeting  these  objections  would  be 
to  say,  '  Exactly,  thus  it  was  with  our  Master.' 
And  thus  many  tales,  however  arising,  which 
possessed  the  great  merit  of  bringing  the  life 
of  Jesus  into  conformity  with  prophecy,  would 
have  a  natural  advantage  which  would  insure 
their  survival  in  the  competition  for  existence, 
and  which  would  secure  them  a  place  in  the 
biographies  accepted  in  the  Society." 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  the  limited  range  of  Applies  only 
this  objection  must  be  remarked.  It  is  not  ^QiaUs. 
doubted  that  in  essentials  Jesus  more  than  ful- 
filled the  anticipations  of  the  prophets  —  that 
He  was  a  Messiah  of  a  spiritual  grandeur  far 
surpassing  the  picture  we  can  compose  from 
the  scattered  features  drawn  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. If  any  Evangelist  was  met  by  the  sup- 
posed objection  that  Jesus  did  not  correspond 
to  the  Old  Testament  picture,  and  if  he  yielded 
to  the  temptation  to  bring  the  reality  into 
apparent  harmony  with  the   expectation,  this 


194      The  Bible :  Its   Origin  and  Nature 

could  only  happen  in  relation  to  some  of  the 
insignificant  externals  and  details. 
And  mainly       It  should  also  be  remarked  that  this  induce- 
Jews.  ment  to  falsification  could  exist  only  in  preach- 

ing to  Jews,  and,  among  them,  to  those  who 
had  made  some  study  of  the  Messianic  predic- 
tions. How  variously  these  were  interpreted 
is  well  known.  The  Gentile  Church  could  at 
first  have  little  interest  in  such  points.  That 
some  Jews  might  ask,  that  some  did  ask, 
for  a  correspondence  between  Jesus  and  the 
prophecies  regarding  the  Messiah  is  certain, 
but  that  an  Evangelist  would  unscrupulously 
falsify  facts,  which  might  be  quite  as  well 
known  to  the  objector  as  to  the  preacher,  is 
not  so  credible.  For  let  us  take  the  case 
selected  by  Dr.  Gardner,  the  descent  of  the 
Messiah  from  David.  We  know  that  this  was 
a  main  point  in  the  identification  of  the  Mes- 
siah, "  Hath  not  the  Scripture  said,  that  Christ 
Cometh  of  the  seed  of  David,  and  out  of  the 
town  of  Bethlehem,  where  David  was  ?  "  And 
the  Evangelists  met  this  demand,  but  how  ? 
Not  by  making  a  bare  affirmation,  unsupported 
by  any  evidence,  that  in  this  respect  Jesus 
verified  prediction,  but  by  publishing  his 
genealogy  —  a  method  which  exposed  them 
to   final   refutation   if   it  was   fictitious,  for  a 


The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Crospels      195 

Jewish  pedigree  could  be  ascertained  beyond 
question. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  there  is  no  evidence  First  be- 
that  the  first  believers  in  general  were  greatly  trijiers. 
concerned  about  such  matters.  Even  Paul, 
whom  one  might  have  expected  to  make  a  great 
point  of  such  correspondences,  rests  his  faith  on 
much  more  central  and  essential  matters.  And 
if  any  credit  is  to  be  given  to  John's  account  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  earliest  disciples  at- 
tached themselves  to  Jesus,  we  can  recognize  in 
it  how  little  weight  these  correspondences  had. 
"Can  any  good  come  out  of  Nazareth?"  says 
the  objector;  and  the  answer  is,  "Come  and 
see ;  "  not  as  Dr.  Gardner  would  have  us  be- 
lieve, "  He  does  not  belong  to  Nazareth  but  to 
Bethlehem." 

3.  We  must  take  into  account  the  likelihood  Are  the 
that  the  writers  would  allow  their  own  opinions  partisan? 
to  color  their  statements.  By  the  time  the 
Gospels  were  written  many  thorny  questions 
had  arisen  in  the  Church,  and  men  had  taken 
their  sides.  Some  quoted  Jesus  as  supporting 
their  opinion,  while  others  held  Him  to  have 
meant  quite  the  opposite.  It  was  not  in  human 
nature  that  a  writer  who  had  a  strong  view 
on  some  controverted  point  should  compose  a 
Gospel   without  letting   it   be   seen   to   which 


against  this 
idea 


196      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

party  he  belonged.  Holtzmann  positively  says, 
"  No  evangelist  writes  history  like  Herodotus, 
merely  to  repeat  what  he  had  heard ;  they  all 
pursue  more  or  less  some  religious  interest." 
The  personal  equation  must  be  ascertained.  As 
Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  put  it  in  chemical 
terms,  "  Smith  gives  you  the  Smithate  of 
truth;  Brown  gives  you  the  Brownate." 
Reaction  Little,  however,  need  be  said  of  this  diffi- 

culty. At  present  its  day  would  seem  to  be 
done  and  a  reaction  against  it  has  set  in.  Thus, 
we  find  even  Schmiedel  saying  that  "on  the 
whole,  such  tendencies  as  have  been  spoken  of 
manifest  themselves  only  in  a  few  parts  of  the 
Gospels."  Of  course  the  different  objects  the 
evangelists  had  in  view  must  have  influenced 
their  choice  of  material.  Matthew,  for  ex- 
ample, omits  features  of  various  incidents 
which  are  carefully  delineated  in  the  other 
Gospels,  because  Matthew's  constant  aim  is  to 
get  at  the  sayings  of  our  Lord  and  put  them  on 
record.  The  language,  too,  of  a  writer  is  nec- 
essarily influenced  by  his  temperament,  educa- 
tion, and  object;  and  such  differences  of  this 
kind  appear  in  the  Gospels,  as  one  would  expect. 
But  that  the  writers'  aims  or  predilections  have 
seriously  damaged  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
Gospels  need  not  be  suspected. 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Grospels      197 

4.  The  discrepancies  in  the  accounts  which  Discrepan- 
the  Gospels  give  of  the  same  event  are  supposed 
to  invalidate  their  testimony.  Thus,  Schmiedel, 
in  his  article  on  the  Resurrection  in  the  "  Ency- 
clopsedia  Biblica,"  makes  much  use  of  this  objec- 
tion, and  lays  down  the  canon  that  discrepant 
accounts  cannot  be  accepted  in  their  main  point 
of  agreement  unless  this  is  confirmed  from  other 
sources.  Regarding  this  argument,  it  is  enough 
to  quote,  and  it  is  a  pleasure  to  quote  the  opin- 
ion of  an  unduly  discredited  author,  whose 
strong  Yorkshire  sense  would  be  invaluable  at 
the  present  time.  Paley  says :  "  I  know  not  a 
more  rash  or  unphilosophical  conduct  of  the 
understanding  than  to  reject  the  substance  of 
a  story  by  reason  of  some  diversity  in  the  cir- 
cumstances with  which  it  is  related.  The 
usual  character  of  human  testimony  is  substan- 
tial truth  under  circumstantial  variety.  This 
is  what  the  daily  experience  of  courts  of  justice 
teaches.  When  accounts  of  a  transaction  come 
from  the  mouths  of  different  witnesses,  it  is 
seldom  that  it  is  not  possible  to  pick  out  ap- 
parent or  real  inconsistencies  between  them. 
These  inconsistencies  are  studiously  displayed 
by  an  adverse  pleader,  but  oftentimes  with  lit- 
tle impression  upon  the  minds  of  the  judges. 
On  the  contrary,  a  close  and  minute  agreement 


198     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

induces  the  suspicion  of  confederacy  and  fraud. 
When  written  histories  touch  upon  the  same 
scenes  of  action,  the  comparison  almost  always 
affords  ground  for  a  like  reflection.  Numerous 
and  sometimes  important  variations  present 
themselves ;  not  seldom  also,  absolute  and  final 
contradictions;  yet  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  are  deemed  sufficient  to  shake  the  credi- 
bility of  the  main  fact.  The  embassy  of  the 
Jews  to  deprecate  the  execution  of  Claudius' 
order  to  place  his  statue  in  their  temple,  Philo 
places  in  harvest,  Josephus  in  seedtime ;  both 
contemporary  writers.  No  reader  is  led  by  this 
inconsistency  to  doubt  whether  such  an  order 
was  given.  Our  own  history  supplies  examples 
of  the  same  kind.  In  the  account  of  the  Mar- 
quis of  Argyll's  death  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II, 
we  have  a  very  remarkable  contradiction.  Lord 
Clarendon  relates  that  he  was  condemned  to  be 
hanged,  which  was  performed  the  same  day ; 
on  the  contrary,  Burnet,  Wodrow,  Heath,  Ec- 
hard,  concur  in  stating  that  he  was  beheaded, 
and  that  he  was  condemned  upon  the  Saturday 
and  executed  on  a  Monday.  Was  any  reader 
of  English  history  ever  sceptic  enough  to  raise 
from  hence  a  question  whether  the  Marquis  of 
Argyll  was  executed  or  not  ?  Yet  this  ought 
to  be  left  in  uncertainty,  according  to  the  prin- 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Grospels      199 

ciples   upon   which  the  Christian   history   has 
sometimes  been  attacked." 

But  there  are  certain  positive  evidences  of  Positive 
trustworthiness  which  must  also  be  taken  into 
account. 

(1)  The  sayings  of  Jesus  have  been  preserved  Sayings  of 
with  remarkable  accuracy,  home  oi  them  were  ratehj  re- 
of  a  self-preserving  kind.  They  could  not  well  p^^^^*^- 
be  forgotten.  They  may  have  been  dissevered 
from  their  original  connection,  but  that  is  of 
less  consequence.  Strauss  himself  says :  "  The 
pithy  sayings  of  Jesus  could  not,  indeed,  be  dis- 
solved by  the  flood  of  the  oral  tradition,  but 
were,  perhaps,  not  seldom  torn  from  their  natu- 
ral connection,  floated  away  from  their  original 
strata,  and  landed,  like  fragments  of  rock,  in 
places  where  they  do  not  really  belong."  Nat- 
urally the  oral  evangelist  grouped  together 
sayings  that  served  his  purpose,  irrespective  of 
the  occasions  on  which  they  were  spoken.  In 
Matthew  we  have  sayings  culled  from  various 
scenes  and  occasions ;  but,  as  Renan  with  true 
literary  sense  remarks,  there  is  in  them  an  un- 
mistakable ring  which  proves  them  to  be  the 
true  product  of  the  mind  of  Christ. 

No  one  can  read  the  parables  without  feeling  inparticit- 
sure  that  they  are  genuine  and  accurately  re-  gambles. 
ported.     The   finish   upon   them,  their   family 


200      The  Bible :    Its   Origin  and  Nature 

likeness  in  style  and  method,  tlieir  aptness,  all 
testify  to  accuracy  of  report  and  exclude  the 
idea  that  they  have  been  invented,  tampered 
with,  or  misrepresented  by  the  evangelists. 
How  they  have  been  so  accurately  reported  is 
something  of  a  problem.  But  there  they  are ; 
and  even  Schmiedel  seems  to  imply  that  they 
are  genuine.  Dr.  Percy  Gardner  indeed  says, 
"There  are  no  entirely  undisputed  sayings  of 
Jesus."  We  might  quite  as  truly  say,  "There 
are  no  undisputed  plays  of  Shakespeare,"  be- 
cause some  literary  lunatic  declares  them  to 
have  been  the  work  of  Bacon. 
Retention  of  (2)  A  somewhat  striking  evidence  of  the 
fidelity  of  the  evangelists  is  to  be  found  in  their 
retention  of  names  and  designations  of  our 
Lord  which  had  become  obsolete  in  the  second 
generation.  In  that  generation  the  name  Jesus 
had  largely  given  place  to  the  title  Christ. 
Christ  had  become  the  name  of  Him  who  bore 
the  office ;  but  in  the  Gospels  the  regular  name 
used  is  Jesus.  Similarly  the  designation  "  Son 
of  Man  "  was  superseded  in  the  second  genera- 
tion, but  the  evangelists,  although  never  hear- 
ing it  used  in  their  own  day,  preserved  its  use 
by  Jesus  Himself.  Other  instances  of  a  similar 
fidelity  might  easily  be  adduced. 

(3)    Another  sure  evidence  of  the  fidelity  of 


obsolete 
names. 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Qospels      201 

the  Gospel  narratives  has  usually  and  justly  Exposure  of 
been  found  in  their  unhesitating  and  frank  of  Apostles. 
exposure  of  the  weaknesses  and  failings  of  the 
Twelve  ;  their  slowness  in  apprehending  the 
meaning  of  the  parables,  the  failure  of  their 
faith  on  critical  occasions,  the  worldliness  of 
their  ambitions,  their  wrangling  with  one  an- 
other, their  abandonment  of  the  Lord  in  the 
hour  of  His  need,  all  is  frankly  related.  Noth- 
ing is  hidden,  nothing  explained  away,  nothing 
excused.  The  thing  as  it  happened  is  told, 
quite  irrespective  of  the  credit  or  discredit  it 
reflected  on  this  or  that  person.  This  charac- 
teristic of  these  narratives  is  of  great  impor- 
tance, revealing  as  it  does  the  objectivity  of  the 
narrative,  the  absence  of  personal  considera- 
tions, the  habit  of  mind  which  sees  the  thing 
as  it  is.  Professor  Fisher  in  his  "  Grounds  of 
Theistic  and  Christian  Belief,"  elaborates  this 
argument  and  warrantably  asks,  "  What  surer 
mark  of  an  honest  narrative  can  exist  than  a 
willingness  to  give  a  plain  unvarnished  account 
of  his  own  mortifying  mistakes,  and  the  conse- 
quent rebuffs,  whether  just  or  not,  which  he  has 
experienced  ?  When  Boswell  writes  that  John- 
son said  to  him,  with  a  stern  look,  '  Sir,  I  have 
known  David  Garrick  longer  than  you  have 
done,  and  I  know  no  right  you  have  to  talk  to 


202      The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


External 
attestation 
by  Paul. 


me  on  the  subject,'  or,  when  an  author  tells  us 
that  his  hero  said  to  him,  '  Sir,  endeavor  to  clear 
your  mind  of  cant,'  no  one  can  doubt  that  the 
biographer  is  telling  a  true  story.  Men  are  not 
likely  to  invent  anecdotes  to  their  own  dis- 
credit. When  we  find  them  in  any  author,  a 
strong  presumption  is  raised  in  favor  of  his 
general  truthfulness." 

The  strongest  external  attestation  of  the 
truthfulness  of  the  Gospel  representation  of 
Jesus  is  that  which  is  furnished  by  the  letters 
of  Paul.  It  is  very  questionable  whether  Paul 
ever  saw  any  of  our  Gospels.  Certainly  he 
had  not  seen  any  of  them  prior  to  the  forma- 
tion of  his  own  belief.  But  it  is  the  same 
Christ  we  find  in  his  letters.  Here  is  the  same 
person  recognized  as  the  Christ,  the  same  per- 
fectness  of  human  character,  the  same  underly- 
ing Divinity,  the  same  death  and  resurrection. 
If  Paul  had  known  Christ  through  the  Gospels, 
we  do  not  know  what  alteration  that  could  have 
made.  The  real  Christ  who  appeared  to  him, 
and  whom  he  learned  to  know  by  his  own  expe- 
rience and  by  conversation  with  those  who  had 
known  our  Lord  on  earth,  is  in  no  respect  dif- 
ferent from  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  In 
short,  the  Christ  we  find  in  the  Gospels  is  the 
Christ  who  won  the  faith  and  devotion  of  those 


The   Trustworthiness  of  the  Cfospels      203 

who  knew  Him  at  first  hand,  and  upon  whom, 
as  its  foundation,  the  Church  was  founded. 
The  picture  we  have  here  is  not  a  replica 
touched  up  by  a  painter  of  a  later  generation 
who  has  ideas  of  his  own  as  to  the  expression 
of  the  features;  it  is  the  original  painting 
which  satisfied  the  personal  friends  of  the 
subject. 

Obviously,  then,  the  critic  cannot  accept  all  A  touch- 
and  everything  he  finds  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  quired. 
but  must  possess  himself  of  some  touchstone  by 
which  all  excrescence  may  be  eliminated  and 
the  fact  remain.  This  of  course  applies  to  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  as  much  as  to  the  events  re- 
corded. Where  the  synoptists  present  different 
forms  of  our  Lord's  sayings,  it  is  sometimes  as 
difficult  as  it  is  important  to  determine  which 
is  genuine. 

What,  then,  is  the  touchstone?  Schmiedel's  SchmiedeVs 
article  in  the  "  Encyclopsedia  Biblica  "  may  be 
accepted  as  the  high  water  mark  of  the  criticism 
that  claims  to  be  scientific  ;  and  one  satisfactory 
feature  of  that  article  is  that  it  attempts  to  fur- 
nish us  with  a  criterion  by  which  we  may  sift 
the  credible  from  the  incredible  in  the  Gospels. 
The  criterion  is  thus  stated  :  "  When  a  profane 
historian  finds  before  him  a  historical  docu- 
ment which  testifies  to  the  worship  of  a  hero 


204     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

unknown  to  other  sources,  he  attaches  first  and 
foremost  importance  to  those  features  which 
cannot  be  deduced  merely  from  the  fact  of  this 
worship,  and  he  does  so  on  the  simple  and  suffi- 
cient ground  that  they  would  not  be  found  in 
this  source  unless  the  author  had  met  with 
them  as  fixed  data  of  tradition.  ...  If  we 
discover  any  such  points,  —  even  if  only  a  few, 
—  they  guarantee  not  only  their  own  contents, 
but  also  much  more.  For  in  that  case  one  may 
also  hold  as  credible  all  else  which  agrees  in 
character  with  these,  and  is,  in  other  respects, 
not  open  to  suspicion.  Indeed,  the  thoroughly 
disinterested  historian  must  recognize  it  as  his 
duty  to  investigate  the  grounds  for  this  so 
great  reverence  for  Himself  which  Jesus  was 
able  to  call  fortli ;  and  he  will  then,  first  and 
foremost,  find  himself  led  to  recognize  as  true 
the  two  great  facts  that  Jesus  had  compassion 
for  the  multitude  and  that  He  preached  with 
power,  not  as  the  Scribes."  The  meagre  re- 
sults yielded  by  his  criterion  might  well  have 
provoked  a  reexamination  of  its  merits.  The 
fact  is,  Schmiedel  starves  himself  for  fear  of 
being  poisoned.  He  throws  away  the  baby 
with  the  dirty  water  of  the  bath.  The  founder 
of  the  Christian  Church  he  finds  to  have  been 
a    benevolent    person   who   was   also    a    good 


The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Gfospels      205 

preacher ;  a  combination  of  Howard  and  White- 
field. 

Not  only  do  the  results  reflect  discredit  on  itsincompe- 
this  criterion,  but  its  inherent  incompetency  is 
apparent.  To  put  aside  all  the  elements  in  the 
record  which  can  be  deduced  from  the  fact  of 
the  hero's  worship  is  to  put  aside  all  that  is 
essential  and  to  begin  at  the  wrong  end.  Ap- 
ply the  principle  to  any  other  hero.  At  Nel- 
son's death  the  nation  sang :  "  His  body  is 
buried  in  peace,  but  his  name  liveth  for  ever- 
more." In  order  to  ascertain  why  his  name 
thus  lives,  Schmiedel  would,  I  presume,  direct 
us  to  the  facts  that  Nelson  was  vain  and  easily 
flattered,  that  he  was  carried  off  his  feet  by  the 
blandishments  of  Lady  Hamilton,  that  he  was 
always  ill  when  he  went  to  sea  —  how  far  will 
these  non-heroic  facts  carry  us  to  the  Nile  and 
Trafalgar?  Is  it  not  obvious  that  we  must 
begin  with  the  facts  which  can  account  for  the 
worship  ? 

Here,  I  think,  we  find  our  proper  starting-  The  true 
point  for  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels  and  the  <="'^''^°"' 
LTue  criterion  of  their  credibility.  We  find  in 
them  that  which  alone  explains  the  Christian 
Church;  the  one  key  which  fits  the  lock.  Do 
the  Gospels  set  before  us  a  self -authenticating 
Revealer  of  God  ?     It  is  in  the  fact  that  Jesus 


206     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

claimed  to  be  the  Christ,  the  representative  of 
God  on  earth,  and  justified  this  claim  by  giving 
us  in  His  life,  death,  and  resurrection,  a  self- 
authenticating  revelation  of  God,  —  it  is  in  this 
fact  that  the  Church  finds  its  explanation,  and 
it  is  this  figure,  the  figure  of  the  Christ,  that 
the  Gospels  present.  Whatever  fits  this  claim 
and  is  congruous  with  it  is  credible.  The  testi- 
mony of  an  eye-witness  is  only  accepted  when 
he  relates  what  is  credible :  and  the  testimony 
of  one  who  is  removed  by  half  a  century  from 
the  event  he  relates,  may  yet  be  accepted  as 
trustworthy  if  the  incident  he  relates  is  con- 
gruous with  what  we  otherwise  know  of  the 
person  involved.  So  that  credibility  is  the 
touchstone  of  testimony;  and  of  credibility 
itself,  the  criterion  is  congruity  with  what  is 
otherwise  known.  Things  that  would  never 
be  disputed  if  related  of  one  person,  will  be 
doubted  and  contested  if  told  of  another.  And 
in  the  claim  of  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  and  His 
acceptance  as  such  by  the  disciples  and  the 
Church,  we  have  the  criterion  by  which  the 
Gospels  must  be  judged.  It  is  this  central  fact 
which  enables  us  to  believe  what  they  tell  us  of 
His  miracles  and  His  resurrection.  If  Jesus 
was  the  representative  of  God  on  earth,  if  He 
authenticates  Himself  as  such,  we  may  expect 


The  Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels      207 

unique  incidents  and  much  that  is  beyond 
the  ordinary  reach  of  man.  Particular  mani- 
festations may  be  doubted  by  this  or  tliat  indi- 
vidual, but  in  the  Messiahship  there  is  laid  a 
ground  for  belief  in  the  main  tenor  of  the  life 
as  related  in  the  Gospels.  We  can  believe  of 
this  person,  the  Christ,  what  we  could  not  be- 
lieve of  any  other. 

Here,  then,    we   return    to   the    question   as   The  Christ 
stated  in  the  outset.  Do  the  Gospels  set  before  Gospels  seif- 
us  a  credible  Christ  ?     Is  the  figure  they  depict  autheyiUcat- 
a  true  representation  of  the  Christ  ?     That  it  is 
so   in   essentials   cannot   be   questioned.      The 
figure  presented  in  the  Gospels  is  self-verifying 
as  God's  representative.     A  revelation  of  God 
superior  to  every  other  is  made  by  the  person 
and  ministry  depicted.     In  these   records  we 
find  the  best  and  highest  we  know  —  in  a  word, 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 

No  doubt  it  may  still  be  objected  that  this  Was  He  the 
figure  was  the  creation  of   the  disciples,  and  %l^evange- 
never  really  existed.     That  objection  was  ex-  '^*^*-^ 
ploded  as  long  ago  as  Rousseau  ;  and  Ullmann, 
in  his  criticism  of  Strauss,  may  be  said  to  have 
finally   disposed    of    the   alternative,    Did   the 
Church   create    Christ  ?    or    did     Christ     cre- 
ate   the    Church  ?      A   figure    so   wholly  dis- 
appointing  current    Messianic  expectation,   so 


208     The  Bible :   Its   Origiyi  and  Nature 

traversing  the  ideas  of  good  Jews  that  even  the 
Baptist  misunderstood  Him,  could  not  be  the 
invention  of  a  few  peasants.  It  suffices  to  cite 
John  Stuart  Mill,  who  says:  ^  "  It  is  of  no  use 
to  say  that  Christ,  as  exhibited  in  the  Gospels, 
is  not  historical  —  who  among  His  disciples  or 
among  their  proselytes  was  capable  of  invent- 
ing the  sayings  ascribed  to  Jesus,  or  of  imagin- 
ing the  life  and  character  revealed  in  the 
Gospels  ?  Certainly  not  the  fishermen  of  Gali- 
lee, as  certainly  not  St.  Paul." 
Essential  The  grand  essential   characteristics   of   out- 

claims  of  ,         -,•  .,..,, 

Christ  made  Standing    individuals    are    understood    by   the 
^°°^'  people,  even  though  their  birth  or  the  particu- 

lars of  their  career  are  little  known.  Clive 
is  recognized  as  having  laid  the  foundations  of 
the  British  Indian  Empire,  Wellington  as  hav- 
ing broken  the  power  of  Napoleon,  Watt  as  the 
developer  of  the  steam  engine.  That  Jesus  was 
the  Christ  was  also  recognized,  and  His  rejection 
and  crucifixion  by  the  authorities  testify  to  His 
claim.  The  details  by  means  of  which  this 
claim  was  made  and  justified  will  be  viewed 
variously  by  various  minds,  but  the  claim  is  so 
unique  and  marvellous  that  it  discounts  all  sur- 
prise at  particular  marvels  which  are  recorded. 
Conclusion.        What,  then,  may  we  reasonably  conclude  from 

1  "Essays,"  p.  233. 


The   TrustwortJiiness  of  the  Gospels      209 

all  this  ?  It  is  not  possible  to  say  of  the  Gospels, 
"Everything  herein  recorded  happened  precisely 
as  related."  This  is  impossible  for  the  simple 
reason  that  in  some  instances  the  several  Gospels 
give  us  discrepant  and  irreconcilable  accounts 
of  the  same  event.  Some  events,  such  as  the 
Virgin -birth,  depend  for  their  acceptance  so 
largely  upon  preconceptions  and  the  mental 
attitude  of  the  reader,  that  it  may  be  impossible 
to  adduce  convincing  evidence  of  their  truth. 
Of  other  narratives,  such  as  that  of  the  Gadarene 
demoniac,  it  may  be  felt  that  there  is  either 
some  misunderstanding  of  what  actually  took 
place  or  some  link  omitted  whose  presence 
might  have  shed  light  on  the  incident.  But 
such  difficulties,  omissions,  and  discrepancies 
cannot  be  said  to  alter  or  even  to  dim  the  cen- 
tral figure.  It  matters  nothing  so  far  as  our 
preception  of  Christ  and  our  belief  in  Him  is 
concerned,  whether  He  healed  two  blind  men 
in  Jericho  or  only  one,  nor  whether  this  healing 
took  place  at  His  entrance  to  the  city  or  His 
exit  from  it.  WJi.at  is  it  we  seek  in  the  Gospels? 
It  is  the  knowledge  of  Christ.  That  the  Gos- 
pels present  us  with  a  lifelike  portrait  of  Christ 
and  with  so  accurate  a  report  of  His  words  that 
we  can  form  a  true  estimate  of  His  teaching, 
this  is  not  to  be  doubted.     It  is  the  Christ  of 


210      The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

the  Crospels  that  has  won  the  heart  of  Christen- 
dom and  that  in  millions  of  instances  has  been 
found  true  and  efficacious  in  the  bringing  of 
many  sons  to  glory  and  to  God.  And  from 
that  majestic  figure  we  must  not  allow  our 
minds  to  be  drawn  aside  by  the  minutiae  of 
criticism.  The  danger  of  criticism  is  not  in 
what  it  discovers  but  in  turning  the  mind  aside 
to  details  and  externals.  Those  who  work  in 
it  tend  to  lose  perspective  and  atmosphere. 
The  warning  of  Amiel  in  another  sphere  is 
applicable  to  this :  "  There  is  a  way  of  killing 
truth  by  truths.  Under  the  pretence  that  we 
want  to  study  it  more  in  detail  we  pulverize 
the  statue.  It  is  an  absurdity  of  which  our 
pedantry  is  constantly  guilty."  ^ 

1  "Journal,"  II., 258. 


VII 

THE   MIRACULOUS  ELEMENT   IN 
THE  GOSPELS 


VII 

THE  MIRACULOUS  ELEMENT  IN  THE 
GOSPELS 

That  Jesus  considered  the  healing  of  disease   The  healing 

.       j_  ,  •    T      p      ,  p    of  disease 

an  important,  or  even  an  essential,  leature  oi  essential  to 
His  work,  is  apparent  both  from  His  practice  *^*^  '"^'^^^  ^^ 
and  from  His  words.  His  practice  again  and 
again  elicits  from  the  evangelists  the  remark 
that  they  are  unable  to  record  every  individual 
cure.  They  content  themselves  with  such  sum- 
maries as  we  find  in  Luke  iv.  40,  "All  they 
that  had  any  sick  with  divers  diseases  brought 
them  unto  Him ;  and  He  laid  His  hands  on 
every  one  of  them,  and  healed  them."  The 
prominence  which  these  physical  cures  had  in 
His  ministry  is  convincingly  reflected  in  His 
fear  lest  the  Messianic  function  should  come 
to  be  identified  with  this  form  of  ministry. 
And  yet  He  found  Himself  constrained  more 
than  once  to  draw  attention  to  His  works 
of  healing  and  to  their  significance.  When 
Herod's  threat  was  reported  to  Him,  He 
almost   gave    the    impression   that    His    whole 

213 


214      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

work  was  to  heal :  "  I  will  perform  cures  to-day 
and  to-morrow:  and  the  third  day  I  will  be 
perfected."  Still  more  significant  is  His  expla- 
nation of  His  reason,  or  one  of  His  reasons,  for 
exorcism,  which  may  be  reckoned  among  His 
works  of  healing.  His  justification  is,  that 
the  strong  man  armed  who  guards  his  own 
house,  —  that  is,  Satan,  —  must  be  bound  if 
the  contents  of  his  house  are  to  be  spoiled. 
The  casting  out  of  the  devils  was  the  binding 
of  the  strong  man,  the  necessary  preliminary 
to  the  taking  possession  of  the  Spirit  of  man 
and  the  abolition  of  all  Satanic  results  therein. 
It  was  the  sign  that  the  kingdom,  or  reign 
of  God,  had  really  begun  among  men  (Luke 
ii.  20). 
Disparage-  At  the  present  time,  however,  the  idea  very 
miracle,  commonly  obtains  that  Christianity  would  float 
more  buoyantly  and  prosperously  were  the 
miraculous  element  in  the  Gospel  narrative 
thrown  overboard.  Men  favorable  to  Chris- 
tianity and  of  weighty  mental  caliber  disparage 
miracle,  and  deny  that  it  is  needed.  Matthew 
Arnold  goes  so  far  as  to  say,^  "  There  is  noth- 
ing one  would  more  desire  for  a  person  or  a 
document  one  greatly  values  than  to  make  them 
independent  of  miracles."  Harnack,  the  most 
1  "  Literature  aud  Dogma,"  p.  137. 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Grospels     215 

prominent  of  living  German  critics,  recently 
undertook  to  tell  the  world  what  was  "the 
essence  of  Christianity,"  and  he  definitely 
excludes  the  miraculous :  "We  must  either 
decide  to  rest  our  belief  on  a  foundation  un- 
stable and  always  exposed  to  fresh  doubts  or 
else  we  must  abandon  this  foundation  alto- 
gether, and  with  it  the  miraculous  appeal  to 
our  senses."  And  again  :  "We  are  firmly  con- 
vinced that  what  happens  in  space  and  time  is 
subject  to  the  general  laws  of  motion,  and  that 
in  this  sense,  as  an  interruption  of  the  order  of 
nature,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  miracle." 

It  is  not  only  professed  sceptics  who  in  our  eveii  by 
time  assume  this  attitude  of  distrust  or  sus-  "^°  ^^**  *' 
pended  judgment  toward  the  miraculous. 
Defenders  of  the  faith  manifest  the  same 
uneasiness.  Dr.  Rashdall,  certainly  one  of 
the  ablest  living  philosophical  theists,  while 
maintaining  that  the  visions  of  our  Lord  after 
the  resurrection  "were  not  mere  subjective 
delusions,"  yet  expresses  himself  strongly  in 
regard  to  the  miraculous.  "  We  may  be  quite 
confident,"  he  says,  "that  for  minds  which  have 
once  appreciated  the  principles  of  historical 
criticism,  or  minds  affected  by  the  diffused 
scepticism  which  has  sprung  from  historical 
criticism,    neither    religious    faith    in    general 


216      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Miracles  an 
incubus 
lohile  mis- 
understood. 


nor  any  doctrine  of  primary  religious  impor- 
tance, will  ever  depend  mainly  upon  the  evi- 
dence of  abnormal  events  recorded  to  have 
happened  in  the  remote  past."^ 

But  it  is  needless  accumulating  testimonies. 
Every  one  is  already  aware  that  the  idea  very 
widely  prevails  that  the  Gospel  miracles  are  an 
excrescence  marring  the  simplicity  and  beauty 
of  the  life  of  our  Lord,  and  that  if  once  they 
served  a  purpose,  which  is  very  doubtful,  it 
were  better  now  to  say  nothing  about  them. 
Thus  Browning  compares  them  to  the  dry  twigs 
stuck  round  a  newly  sown  flower-plot  to  pre- 
serve it  from  the  trampling  beasts,  but  when 
the  plants  themselves  are  grown,  visible,  strong, 
overtopping  the  hedge,  the  preserving  sticks 
are  thrown  into  the  rubbish  heap. 

The  ethics  of  Christianity,  it  is  supposed,  if  cut 
free  from  this  incubus,  would  assert  their  supe- 
riority and  attract  all  men.  And  of  course  so 
long  as  the  miracles  of  our  Lord  are  not  recog- 
nized as  an  essential  part  of  His  revelation,  so 
long  will  they  be  felt  to  be  a  hindrance  and  not 
a  help  to  faith.  But  Jesus  evidently  consid- 
ered miraculous  works  of  healing  an  essential 
element  in  His  work,  and  whoever  feels  uneasy 
about  the  miraculous,  and  fancies  that  perhaps 
1  "Contentio  Veritatis,"  p.  58. 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  (xospels     217 

it  would  be  well  to  yield  the  point  and  surrender 
miracle,  must  be  looking  at  the  matter  with 
very  different  eyes  from  those  with  which  our 
Lord  viewed  it.  Hence  the  importance  of  con- 
sidering His  attitude  toward  miracle. 

It  has  recently  been  most  pertinently  asked  : 
"If  it  was  worth  Christ's  while  in  His  short 
earthly  life  to  fatigue  Himself  in  physical  mira- 
cles of  healing,  is  it  not  worth  our  while  to 
attend  to  the  fact,  to  be  grateful  for  it,  and  to 
hand  on  to  others,  undiminished,  the  full  record 
of  His  gracious  help  to  human  need,  and  of  His 
manifold  appeal  to  human  faith  ?  "  ^ 

The  points  which  seem  especially  to  demand  Points  de- 
consideration  at  present  are  these  :  What  pre-  "Insidem- 
cisely  we  claim  for  Jesus  in  claiming  the  power  ^^°"- 
to  work  miracles.     Is  it  merely  faith-healing  or 
some  greater  power?     What  importance   and 
significance  did  Jesus   Himself   attach   to   the 
working  of  miracles,  and  in  what  relation  did 
they  stand  to  the  whole  of  His  work  of  reveal- 
ing   the    Father  ?       After    considering    these 
points,  we   may  take  up   one   or   two   of  the 
common  objections. 

1.  First,  then,  the  Gospels  claim  for  Jesus   Terms  de- 
some  greater  power  than  that  of  healing  the  tirade. 
sick  —  some  power  which  they  called  and  which 
1  Mackintosh,  "Apologetics,"  p.  48. 


218     The  Bible :   Its    Origin  and  Nature 

we  also  call  miraculous.  There  is  little  need 
that  we  lay  down  any  hard-and-fast  definition 
of  miracle.  But  one  or  two  words  of  explana- 
tion are  perhaps  necessary  at  the  outset.  In 
the  New  Testament  we  find  four  words  applied 
to  the  same  phenomenon,  marvel,  sign,  work, 
power.  Our  word  "•  miracle  "  corresponds  only 
to  the  first  of  these,  and  therefore  leaves  out  of 
view  three-fourths  of  the  characteristics  of  the 
phenomenon.  It  is  not  only  a  marvel  calling 
men's  attention,  "  ringing  the  bell  of  the  uni- 
verse," as  John  Foster  said  ;  it  also  responds  to 
the  attention  and  inquiry  aroused  by  being  a 
"sign,"  revealing  a  spiritual  presence,  or  em- 
bodying and  illustrating  a  spiritual  truth  ;  it  is 
also  preeminently  a  "  work "  advancing  some 
beneficent  and  worthy  object  and  fitting  itself 
in  as  an  essential  part  of  the  task  given  Him 
by  the  Father  to  do.  It  is,  besides,  a  "  power," 
transcending  ordinary  human  endeavor  and 
bringing  to  bear  on  human  affairs  and  for  the 
relief  of  human  needs  a  force  of  irresistible 
might.  ^ 
Expiana-  These   are   the    features    of    miracle   which 

tiomofmir.  ^j^^^^^    ^^    presented   to   the    mind    when   we 
speak  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus.     Sometimes  we 

1  Cf.  Lyman  Abbott's  "Theology  of  an  Evolutionist," 
p.  134. 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Grospels     219 

know  a  thing  better  when  we  do  not  try  to  de- 
fine it.  But  if  definitions  are  wanted,  they  can 
be  found  in  abundance  in  Chapuis'  "  Du  Sur- 
naturel,"  or  in  Trench,  or  Mozley,  or  in  Pflei- 
derer's  "Philosophy  of  Religion."  There  are 
two  explanations  of  miracle  which  are  interest- 
ing :  that  which  explains  it  as  the  introduction 
of  a  higher  and  to  us  unfamiliar  law,  and  that 
which  refers  it  to  the  immediate  action  of  the 
Divine  will.  Of  the  former  explanation  Car- 
lyle  in  his  "  Sartor  "  may  be  taken  as  the  ex- 
ponent. "But  is  not  a  real  miracle  simply  a 
violation  of  the  Laws  of  Nature  ?  ask  several. 
Whom  I  answer  by  this  new  question,  What 
are  the  Laws  of  Nature  ?  To  me  perhaps  the 
rising  from  the  dead  were  no  violation  of  these 
Laws,  but  a  confirmation,  were  some  far  deeper 
law  now  first  penetrated  into,  and  by  Spiritual 
Force,  even  as  the  rest  have  all  been,  brought 
to  bear  on  us  with  its  Material  Force."  But 
this  supposition,  although  it  finds  much  to  sup- 
port it,  remains  an  unverified,  and  by  the  nature 
of  the  case  unverifiable,  hypothesis. 

The  reference  of  miracle  to  the  direct  action  Referable  to 
of  the  Divine  will  is  the  most  straightforward  ^,^1 
explanation.     In  ourselves  we  have  before  us 
the  constant  proof  that  spirit  acts  directly  upon 
matter  :  our  will,  invisible,  intangible,  spiritual, 


220      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  arid  Nature 

moves  our  hands,  feet,  and  other  organs  —  hoiv 
we  do  not  know.  But  here  we  see  spirit  act- 
ing directly  on  matter ;  and,  instructed  by  this 
experience,  we  seem  to  find  it  not  inconceivable 
that  the  Divine  will  should  be  so  intimate  to 
the  material  world  as  to  act  directly  upon  it 
and  accomplish  results  which  without  the  inter- 
vention of  that  will  would  not  have  taken  place. 
and  Now  our  Lord  claims  that  the  miracles  He 

faith.  ^  performed  were  the  works  given  Him  by  the 
Father  to  do.  They  were  done,  no  doubt, 
through  His  own  will,  but  there  was  behind 
it  the  Divine  will.  And  therefore  He  declared 
that  the  power  of  working  miracles  was  within 
reach  of  every  one  who  believed  in  God. 
When  the  disciples  asked  Him  why  they  were 
unable  to  heal  a  lunatic  boy.  His  answer  was, 
"Because  of  your  unbelief,  for  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  If  ye  have  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard 
seed,  ye  shall  say  unto  this  mountain.  Remove 
hence  to  yonder  place,  and  it  shall  remove,  and 
nothing  shall  be  impossible  unto  you."  Peter 
is  assured  that  he  also  could  have  walked  on 
the  water  had  he  had  sufficient  faith.  It  was 
not  on  an  independent  power  of  His  own  nor 
on  the  magic  of  His  own  personality  our  Lord 
depended,  but  on  His  closeness  to  the  Father. 
Just    as    He    rebuked    the    young    man   who 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Crospels     221 

ascribed  to  Him  independent  goodness,  so 
would  He  say  of  His  miracles,  There  is  none 
mighty  but  God. 

It  is  important  to  observe  this  reference  by  Faith- 
our  Lord  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  because  it  ^"  *"^' 
differentiates  Him  from  the  mere  hypnotist  or 
faith-healer.  That  many  of  our  Lord's  cures 
may  legitimately  be  classed  with  the  ordinary 
manifestations  of  faith-healing  is  not  to  be  . 
denied.  It  is  needless  in  our  day  to  insist 
upon  the  reality  of  such  manifestations,  be- 
cause science  has  taken  up  a  line  of  inquiry 
which  puts  them  beyond  question  and  at  the 
same  time  explains  their  nature.  In  Tuke's 
"Illustrations  of  the  Influence  of  the  Mind 
upon  the  Body  in  Health  and  Disease,"  or  in 
Carpenter's  "  Mental  Physiology,"  or  in  Alice 
Fielding's  "  Faith-healing  and  Christian  Sci- 
ence," sufficient  evidence  is  cited  to  show  that 
one  of  the  most  potent  agents  in  dispelling  cer- 
tain forms  of  disease  is  confident  expectation 
of  cure.  Thus  Dr.  Carpenter  in  his  authorita- 
tive work  states  :  "  That  the  confident  expecta- 
tion of  a  cure  is  the  most  potent  means  of 
bringing  it  about,  doing  that  which  no  medi- 
cal treatment  can  accomplish,  may  be  affirmed 
as  the  generalized  result  of  experiences  of  the 
most  varied  kind,  extending  through  a  long 


222     The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

series  of  ages.  .  .  .  For  although  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  in  a  great  number  of  cases 
the  patients  have  believed  themselves  to  be 
cured,  when  no  real  amelioration  of  their  con- 
dition had  taken  place,  yet  there  is  a  large 
body  of  trustworthy  evidence,  that  permanent 
amendment  of  a  kind  perfectly  obvious  to 
others  has  shown  itself  in  a  great  variety  of 
local  maladies,  when  the  patients  have  been 
sufficiently  possessed  by  the  expectation  of  ben- 
efit and  by  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  the  means 
employed." 
Faith-cures  The  Certification,  by  medical  science  and 
psychological  observation,  of  the  genuineness 
of  cures  wrought  by  the  expectation  of  cure, 
has  been  eagerly  accepted  by  many  as  giving 
all  the  explanation  required  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ.  Those  cures  were  actually  performed 
and  gave  the  suggestion  and  the  ground  of  the 
ascription  of  other  and  greater  miracles.  Al- 
though those  cures  are  now  explained  in  con- 
formity with  well-ascertained  natural  laws,  yet 
in  the  time  of  our  Lord  they  were  supposed  to 
be  miraculous,  and  once  the  door  was  opened  to 
miracle,  crowds  entered  without  the  legitimate 
pass.  Certainly  this  explanation  will  occur  to 
any  thoughtful  mind. 

Our  reasons  for  being  dissatisfied  with  it  are 


genuine. 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Gospels     223 

(1)  that  while  in  some  respects  the  cures  ac-  Diferenti- 
complished  by  Jesus  resembled  those  of  the  miracles. 
hypnotist  or  faith-healer,  in  other  respects  they 
differed.  They  resembled  them  in  always  re- 
quiring faith  in  the  patient.  Where  there  was 
no  faith  our  Lord  could  do  no  mighty  works. 
Sometimes,  that  faith  seems  to  have  been  a  mere 
expectation  to  be  healed,  a  vague,  superstitious, 
ignorant  expectation.  But  the  faith  of  the 
patient  was  not  recognized  by  our  Lord  as  the 
sole  or  even  the  main  factor  in  the  cure.  His 
own  faith  was  always  directed  toward  the  su- 
preme will.  He  prayed  before  raising  Lazarus. 
He  declares  that  certain  kinds  of  exorcism  can 
only  be  achieved  by  prayer.  On  the  one  hand 
He  brought  Himself  into  so  living  a  sympathy 
with  the  sufferer  that  it  could  be  said  that  "  He 
took  our  infirmities  and  bore  our  sicknesses," 
while  on  the  other  hand  He  became  the  pure 
channel  of  the  Father's  will.  It  was  not  by  a 
mere  wave  of  the  hand  or  utterance  of  a  for- 
mula the  cure  was  accomplished,  but  only  by 
putting  Himself  in  the  place  of  the  sufferer  on 
the  one  hand  and  by  being  in  the  purest  and 
most  absolute  harmony  with  God  on  the  other 
hand. 

It  may  no  doubt  be  said  that  our  Lord  was 
mistaken  in  supposing  that  the  special  will  of 


224      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Miracles  of 
Jesus  not 
exclusively 
cures  of 
nervous  dis- 
orders, 


God  had  anything  to  do  with  the  cures  ;  that 
they  were  instances  of  the  ordinary  law,  that 
expectation  of  a  cure,  irrespective  of  any  spe- 
cial intervention  of  God,  works  wonders  in 
certain  forms  of  nervous  disorders.  We  should, 
I  think,  be  slow  to  ascribe  such  ignorance  to 
our  Lord  ;  but,  in  any  case,  the  fact  remains 
that  He  was  conscious  of  being  in  harmony  with 
God,  and  thus  in  His  hands  these  works  became 
the  expression  of  the  Father's  good  will  to  men. 
But  (2)  besides  this,  cures  of  nervous  disor- 
ders were  not  the  only  form  in  which  Christ's 
power  of  working  miracle  was  manifested. 
His  ministry  was  characterized  further  by  heal- 
ings of  leprosy,  fever,  and  other  maladies,  by 
healing  at  a  distance  where  no  physical  contact 
was  possible,  even  by  raisings  from  the  dead, 
and  by  remarkable  manifestations  of  power 
over  nature.  And  undoubtedly  the  proof  of 
these  will  depend  not  upon  our  knowledge  of 
the  similarity  of  the  powers  of  Jesus  to  those 
of  ordinary  men,  but  upon  the  conception  we 
entertain  of  that  which  distinguished  Him  from 
others.  If  we  accept  Him  as  the  Christ  and 
believe  in  His  unbroken  and  perfect  union  with 
God,  we  shall  be  prepared  to  admit  that  excep- 
tional manifestations  may  be  expected  in  His 
career. 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Grospels     225 
(3)    It  is  further  to  be  observed   that  the  norexciu- 

1  1  •   1         1  •T.'i.  i  sively  works 

miracles  which  exhibit  power  over  nature  come  of  healing. 

to  us  on  the  very  same  documentary  evidence 
as  the  miracles  of  healing.  This  does  not  com- 
pel belief,  but  it  requires  that  the  introduction 
of  such  occurrences  into  the  Gospels  should  be 
accounted  for.  Generally  it  is  accounted  for 
by  the  assertion  that  these  accounts  were  the 
reflection  of  the  opinion  of  those  of  the  second 
Christian  generation  in  whose  time  they  were 
written.  But  unfortunately  for  this  hypothe- 
sis, remarkably  little  account  was  made  of 
Christ's  miracles  in  that  generation.  Neither 
in  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  nor  in  the  Acts,  are 
they  alluded  to  more  than  once  or  twice.  And, 
as  Dr.  Chase  has  pointed  out,  this  constitutes 
"  a  strong  historical  argument  against  the  posi- 
tion that  in  the  days  when  the  Gospels  were 
written  there  was  a  tendency  at  work  among 
the  disciples  which  impelled  them  to  decorate 
the  story  of  their  Master's  life  with  fictitious 
miracles."^ 

But  if  we  are  to  accept  miracle,  we  must  first  Function  of 
recognize  its  true  function  and  significance  —  ''tirade. 
the   relation   it   holds   to   the    entire   work   of 
Christ.     What,  then,  was  our  Lord's  purpose 
in   performing   miracles?     The  answer   is,  He 
1  "Supernatural  Element,"  p.  16. 


226      The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 


Not  to  con- 
vince men 
of  His  Mes- 
siahship, 


performed  them  not  to  convince  people  that 
He  was  the  Messiah,  the  messenger  and  rep- 
resentative of  God,  but  because  He  had  that 
understanding  of  God's  love  and  that  perfect 
fellowship  with  God  which  made  Him  the 
Messiah. 

He  wrought  no  miracle  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
vincing men  of  His  Messiahship.  From  the  first, 
indeed,  this  constituted  one  of  His  typical,  nor- 
mal temptations.  The  people  expected  that  by 
some  stupendous  sign,  such  as  leaping  from  the 
temple  roof,  and  alighting  unhurt  in  the  court 
below,  the  jNIessiah  would  declare  Himself.  But 
any  such  sign  wholly  disconnected  from  the 
spiritual  character  of  His  work  He  resolutely, 
peremptorily,  and  persistently  refused.  Nor 
were  any  of  the  wonderful  works  He  did  done 
for  the  purpose  of  persuading  men.  Their 
primary  purpose  was  to  relieve  distress.  He 
came  to  proclaim  and  establish  God's  Kingdom 
among  men,  to  manifest  Crod's  presence  and  love. 
This  He  did  more  effectually  by  His  works  of 
healing  than  by  His  teaching.  It  was  His  mira- 
cles that  impressed  men  with  a  sense  of  the 
Divine  compassion  ;  they  were  the  revelation 
of  the  Father's  sympathy.  Disease,  Christ  felt, 
is  incongruous  with  the  Kingdom  of  God ;  and 
if  he  is  to  exhibit  that  Kingdom,  it  must  be 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Q-ospels     227 

manifested  in  the  physical  as  in  the  spiritual 
sphere.  He  was  grieved  when  confronted  with 
disease  and  death.  This,  He  felt,  is  not  the 
world  as  the  Father  would  have  it  and  means  it 
to  be.  In  so  far  as  He  had  power  to  remove  the 
distresses  of  men.  He  felt  called  upon  to  do  so. 
Those  healings  were  the  works  given  Him  by 
the  Father  to  do.  They  manifested  God's  love 
because  done  out  of  pure  compassion  in  the 
Father's  name  and  with  the  Father's  power. 
As  it  was  by  the  power  of  God  He  achieved 
those  cures,  so  it  was  the  love  of  God  that 
prompted  them ;  and  therefore  He  could  say, 
"  If  I  by  the  finger  of  God  cast  out  devils,  then 
is  the  Kingdom  of  Grod  come  unto  you."  These 
were  the  works  congruous  to  God's  presence, 
and  accomplishing  results  which  exhibited  the 
Kingdom. 

But  just  because  the  primary  purpose  of  the  yet  did  con- 
miracles  was  to  give  expression  to  God's  mercy 
and  not  to  prove  our  Lord's  Messiahship,  on  this 
very  account  they  can  be  appealed  to  as  evi- 
dence that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  The  poet 
writes  because  he  is  a  poet,  and  not  for  the 
purpose  of  convincing  the  world  that  he  is  a 
poet.  And  yet  his  writing  does  convince  the 
world  that  he  is  a  poet.  The  benevolent  man 
acts  precisely  as  Christ  did  when  He  laid  His 


vmce  men. 


228      The  Bible:   Its  Origin  and  Nature 


What  the 
true 

''signs  " 
are. 


finger  on  the  lips  of  the  healed  person  and 
charged  him  to  make  no  mention  of  His  kind- 
ness, and  therefore  all  who  do  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  it  recognize  him  as  a  charitable 
person.  Actions  done  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing a  character  for  courage  or  compassion 
or  what  not,  are  much  more  likely  to  establish  a 
character  for  vanity  and  love  of  display.  And 
it  is  just  because  the  primary  intention  of 
Christ's  miracles  was  not  to  establish  a  char- 
acter for  this  or  that,  but  directly  to  help  needy 
persons,  and  so  give  utterance  to  God's  love, 
that  they  do  convincingly  prove  Him  to  be 
God's  representative,  the  true  King  of  the  new 
Kingdom.  Accordingly  Jesus  does  not  scruple 
on  occasion  to  appeal  to  His  miracles :  "  The 
works  which  the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish, 
the  same  works  that  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me, 
that  the  Father  hath  sent  me ;  "  and  again, 
"  Though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works." 
St.  Matthew  records  (xvi.  1-4)  a  significant 
conversation  between  our  Lord  and  the  com- 
bined Sadducees  and  Pharisees  on  this  point. 
They  came  to  Him  with  their  usual  demand  for 
a  convincing  sign  from  heaven,  continuing  thus 
the  initial  temptation  to  end  all  dubiety  about 
His  Messianic  dignity  by  some  astounding  feat 
or  outward  display.    To  this  appeal  He  replies: 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Gospels     229 

"  In  the  evening  ye  say,  It  will  be  fair  weatlier, 
for  the  sky  is  red :  and  in  the  morning,  There 
will  be  a  storm  to-day,  for  it  is  lowering  red. 
Ye  know  how  to  read  the  face  of  the  sky,  and 
can  ye  not  read  the  signs  of  the  times  ?  "  You 
know  the  sequences  of  nature,  and  understand 
that  certain  results  uniformly  follow  certain 
appearances.  But  you  have  no  eye  for  spiritual 
sequences.  You  do  not  recognize  that  a  clever 
feat,  or  a  supernatural  marvel  which  makes 
men  stare,  has  no  natural  relation  to  the  bless- 
ings of  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  Neither  do 
you  perceive  that  the  presence  among  you  of 
One  in  perfect  harmony  with  God  and  devoted 
to  human  interests  must  result  in  a  kind  of 
weather  altogether  new  in  the  spiritual  world. 
You  do  not  see  that  the  entrance  into  the  world 
of  perfect  humanity,  of  God  in  human  form, 
applying  Himself  with  all  His  Divine  love  and 
power  to  the  actual  needs  of  men,  portends 
more  good  to  the  race  than  the  greatest  physical 
marvel  could  suggest.  Suppose  I  did  clothe 
the  sun  with  a  cloud  as  ye  gaze  upon  it  in  the 
bare  heavens ;  suppose  I  commanded  those 
mountains  to  be  removed,  or  leapt  unhurt  from 
the  temple  roof  to  the  courts  below,  there  is 
no  necessary  and  infallible  connection  between 
such  marvels  and  the  establishment   of   God's 


230      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


The  mira- 
cles as 
signs. 


Kingdom  among  men  or  their  deliverance  from 
sin.  You  could  not  from  your  observation  of 
such  phenomena  predict  what  would  result ; 
but  if  you  could  read  the  signs  of  the  times, 
you  might  infallibly  argue  that  One  in  perfect 
accord  with  God  could  not  enter  into  this 
world's  life  and  become  a  part  of  its  history 
without  setting  in  motion  a  train  of  never- 
ending  and  infinitely  beneficent  consequences. 
Very  markedly  and  repeatedly  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  the  faith  that  is  quickened  by  a  sense 
of  the  personal  majesty  of  Jesus  shown  to  be 
more  trustworthy  than  a  faith  founded  on  His 
miracles.  But  we  must  not  on  that  account 
deny  any  virtue  to  miracles  in  creating  faith. 
As  our  Lord  Himself  told  Nicodemus,  the  King- 
dom of  God  is  a  spiritual  thing,  and  could  only 
be  spiritually  discerned  by  those  who  are  born 
of  the  spirit.  Those  only  could  enter  it  who 
were  attracted  to  Him  by  spiritual  affinities. 
His  claims  were  recognized  by  those  who  had 
eyes  to  see  them,  that  is,  by  those  who  could 
appreciate  Divine  goodness,  the  glory  that  con- 
sisted in  humiliation  and  in  being  the  servant 
of  all.  But  the  miracles  served  as  object-les- 
sons for  those  who  were  not  in  the  front  rank 
of  the  spiritually  sensitive.  His  power  to  give 
the  blind  their  sight  suggested  God's  desire  to 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Gospels     231 

remove  spiritual  blindness ;  His  feeding  the 
hungry  was  His  way  of  saying,  Your  Father 
suffers  with  you  and  cannot  see  you  want. 
His  strengthening  of  the  impotent  man  plainly 
said,  I  will  that  you  have  eternal  life  and 
vitality.  They  were,  in  short,  a  prominent,  im- 
portant, and  legible  part  of  the  revelation  of  the 
Father  made  by  Christ. 

It  is,  then,  to  misunderstand    Christ's   own  Revealing 

flDXCtZOTli  of 

conception  of  His  miracles  and  their  function,  miracles. 
either,  on  the  one  hand,  to  suppose  that  their 
main  function  was  evidential,  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  suppose  that  they  have  no  evidential 
function.  To  consider  them  an  obstacle  rather 
than  a  help  to  faith  is  to  misconceive  the  situa- 
tion. The  fact  that  they  occupy  so  large  a  part 
in  the  narrative,  and  so  large  a  part  in  the  life 
of  Christ  is  proof  enough  that  they  served  an 
important  purpose.  That  purpose  was  to  bring 
the  love  of  the  Father  into  contact  with  the 
woes  of  men.  They  were  the  greatest  means, 
second  to  the  Cross,  of  manifesting  God's  love. 

The  objections  which  at  present  are  brought 
against  the  Gospel  miracles  are  chiefly  two, — 
that  they  cannot  be  proved,  and  that  they  are 
useless  even  though  proved. 

The  apparently  weightier  obiection  that  mir-  ^'"^  "^^'*?* 

^^  JO  J  cles  possi- 

acles  are  impossible  is  not  now  urged.      The  bie? 


232     The  Bible:   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

position  of  those  who  refuse  to  accept  miracle 
has  shifted  since  the  time  when  Spinoza  could 
say,  "  A  miracle,  whether  contrary  to,  or  above 
nature,  is  a  sheer  absurdity."  The  argument 
which  led  him  to  this  conclusion  is  interesting 
and  enlightening.  It  was  this  :  "  Nothing  hap- 
pens in  nature  which  does  not  follow  from  its 
laws ;  these  laws  extend  to  all  which  enters  the 
Divine  mind;  and,  lastly,  nature  proceeds  in  a 
fixed  and  changeless  course — whence  it  follows 
that  the  word  '  Miracle  '  can  only  be  understood 
in  relation  to  the  opinions  of  mankind,  and  sig- 
nifies nothing  more  than  an  event,  a  phenome- 
non, the  cause  of  which  cannot  be  explained  by 
another  familiar  instance.  ...  I  might  say, 
indeed,  that  a  miracle  was  that^  the  cause  of 
which  cannot  be  explained  by  our  natural  un- 
derstanding from  the  known  principles  of  natu- 
ral things."  The  core  of  this  argument  is  the 
same  as  that  which  lingers  in  some  scientific 
schools ;  viz.,  that  as  all  nature  with  its  laws  is 
the  expression  of  the  Divine  mind,  if  anything 
happens  contrary  to  these  laws,  this  must  be 
repugnant  to  the  will  of  God.  But  obviously 
this  position  of  Spinoza's  is  a  petitio  principii, 
—  it  takes  for  granted  the  main  question,  Is 
the  whole  will  of  God  expressed  in  nature? 
In  fact,  this  argument  of  Spinoza's  leads  us  to 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Grospels     233 

see  that  the  question  of  the  possibility  of  mira- 
cle is  really  the  question,  Is  God  supernatural  ? 
Granting  that  the  Divine  life  is  immanent  in 
all  nature,  is  there  also  a  transcendent  will 
which  is  not  bound  by  nature's  laws,  but  can 
assert  itself  on  occasion  irrespective  of  them  ? 
In  other  words.  Is  God  identified  with  nature, 
or  is  He  different  from  and  superior  to  it  ? 

But  this  position  of   Spinoza's  is  generally  Huxley's 

•t  ,     ^     r  AT  1  T      •      definition  of 

departed  from.  And  no  one  has  more  deci-  impossibH- 
sively  pronounced  against  it  than  Professor  ^^2/- 
Huxley.  "Strictly  speaking,"  he  says,  "I  am 
unaware  of  anything  that  has  a  right  to  the 
title  of  an  '  impossibility,'  except  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms.  There  are  impossibilities  logical, 
but  none  natural.  A  '  round  square,'  a  '  pres- 
ent past,'  '  two  parallel  lines  that  intersect,'  are 
impossibilities,  because  the  ideas  denoted  by 
the  predicates,  'round,'  'present,'  'intersect,' 
are  contradictory  of  the  ideas  denoted  by  the 
subjects,  '  square,'  'past,'  'parallel.'  But  walk- 
ing on  water,  or  turning  water  into  wine,  or 
procreation  without  male  intervention,  or  rais- 
ing the  dead,  are  plainly  not  '  impossibilities,' 
in  this  sense."  It  might  be  otherwise,  he  goes 
on  to  say,  if  our  present  knowledge  of  nature 
exhausted  the  possibilities  of  nature,  "  but  it  is 
sufficiently  obvious  not  only  that  we  are  at  the 


234      The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

beginning  of  our  knowledge  of  nature,  instead 
of  having  arrived  at  the  end  of  it,  but  that  the 
limitations  of  our  faculties  are  such  that  we 
never  can  be  in  a  position  to  set  bounds  to  the 
possibilities  of  nature.  We  have  knowledge  of 
what  is  happening  and  what  has  happened  ;  of 
what  will  happen  we  have  and  can  have  no 
more  than  expectation,  grounded  on  our  more 
or  less  correct  reading  of  past  experience,  and 
prompted  by  the  faith  begotten  of  that  experi- 
ence, that  the  order  of  nature  in  the  future  will 
resemble  its  order  in  the  past."  In  this  re- 
markable passage  Huxley  is  careful  to  exclude 
the  Divine  Will,  and  thus  virtually  excludes 
what  is  implied  in  the  Gospel  miracles.  Na- 
ture may  have  surprises  for  us,  but  we  must 
be  guided  in  our  expectations  by  our  experi- 
ence of  her  uniformity.  In  short,  he  is  so  sure 
of  the  impossibility  of  proving  the  occurrence 
of  what  is  contrary  to  natural  law,  that  he  does 
not  feel  called  upon  to  deny  the  possibility  of 
such  phenomena. 
Impossibii-  It  is,  then,  the  impossibility  of  proof  rather 
than  the  a  priori  impossibility  of  miracle  which 
is  now  urged.  This  received  its  classical  ex- 
pression from  Hume  in  the  often  cited  words  : 
"  There  is  not  to  be  found  in  all  history,  any 
miracle  attested  by  a  sufficient  number  of  men. 


iiy  of  proof . 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Grospels     235 

of  such  unquestioned  goodness,  education,  and 
learning  as  to  secure  us  against  all  delusion  in 
themselves ;  of  such  undoubted  integrity  as  to 
place  them  beyond  all  suspicion  of  any  design 
to  deceive  others ;  of  such  credit  and  reputa- 
tion in  the  eyes  of  mankind  as  to  have  a  great 
deal  to  lose  in  case  of  their  being  detected  in 
any  falsehood  ;  and  at  the  same  time,  attesting 
facts  performed  in  such  a  public  manner,  and 
in  so  celebrated  a  part  of  the  world,  as  to  ren- 
der the  detection  unavoidable  ;  all  which  cir- 
cumstances are  requisite  to  give  us  a  full 
assurance  in  the  testimony  of  men."  How  far 
this  attitude  toward  the  Gospel  miracles  has 
gained  upon  thoroughly  Christian  critics  may 
be  gathered  from  the  very  able  statement  of 
the  matter  which  is  given  by  Dr.  Rashdall  in 
"  Contentio  Veritatis,"!  and  in  which  the  follow- 
ing occurs:  "  The  idea  of  a  suspension  of  natural 
law  is  not  a  priori  inadmissible.  At  the  same 
time,  since  such  an  admission  would  destroy  all 
the  criteria,  both  of  scientific  and  historical 
reasoning,  the  admission  of  such  a  suspension 
could  not  reasonably  be  accepted  without  an 
amount  of  evidence  which  is  practically  unat- 
tainable in  reference  to  the  events  of  the  dis- 
tant past."  This  sense  of  the  extreme  difficulty 
1  p.  56. 


236     The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

of  finding  sufficient  evidence  to  establish  any 
breach  of  the  uniformity  of  nature  in  the  past, 
has  been,  I  need  scarcely  say,  enormously 
reenforced  in  recent  years  by  the  extended 
knowledge  of  natural  law,  and  the  increased 
sensitiveness  to  the  uniformity  of  nature  which 
results  from  the  dominance  of  scientific  re- 
search, as  well  as  by  the  more  exact  study  of 
history  which  has  vastly  increased  the  percep- 
tion of  the  kind  and  amount  of  evidence  re- 
quired to  establish  any  supposed  occurrence. 
Compara-  Together  with  this,  the  study  of  history  has 

miracles!  ^^^^  enabled  us  to  pursue  the  comparative  study 
of  miracles.  Many  sincere  inquirers  cordially 
accept  Matthew  Arnold's  words :  "  The  time 
has  come  when  the  minds  of  men  no  longer 
put  as  a  matter  of  course  the  Bible  miracles  in 
a  class  by  themselves.  Now,  from  the  moment 
this  time  commences,  from  the  moment  that 
the  comparative  history  of  all  miracles  is  a 
conception  entertained  and  a  study  admitted, 
the  conclusion  is  certain,  the  reign  of  the  Bible 
miracles  is  doomed.  "^  This  comparative  study 
of  miracles  has  been  zealously  pursued,  and  it 
has  been  shown  that  supernatural  powers  have 
been  freely  ascribed  to  the  Buddha  and  the 
Bab,  to  Thomas  a  Becket  and  St.  Francis  of 
1  "  God  and  the  Bible,"  p.  46. 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Grospels     237 

Assisi.  The  miracles  of  Jesus  are  supposed  to 
be  so  analogous  to  those  of  other  founders  and 
saints  that  if  we  reject  the  one  we  are  bound 
to  reject  the  other.  Thus  Mr.  Percy  Gardner, 
in  his  instructive  "  Historic  View  of  the  New 
Testament,"  ^  says :  "  Whether  we  investigate 
the  history  of  the  past  or  turn  our  attention 
to  the  less  civilized  countries  of  the  world  in 
which  we  live,  we  find  that  no  class  of  phe- 
nomena is  a  more  constant  concomitant  of  the 
story  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  religions  than 
the  miraculous ;  that  a  prophet  will  scarcely  be 
listened  to  in  any  land  unless  he  is  credited 
by  his  followers  with  the  power  of  reversing  or 
superseding  the  laws  of  nature;  that  marvels 
follow  the  steps  of  the  saint  by  an  inevitable 
law  of  human  nature."  Similarly,  Professor 
Carpenter,  in  "  The  Bible  of  the  Nineteenth 
Century,"  ^  puts  forward  the  same  plea :  "  The 
truth  is,"  he  says,  "  that  the  studies  of  the  last 
generation  have  brought  to  light  a  wide  range 
of  facts  showing  that  from  the  lowest  forms  of 
savage  cults  up  to  the  more  refined  beliefs  of 
the  higlier  religions  the  presence  of  the  miracu- 
lous is  invariable." 

Here,   then,   we    are    confronted    with    two  Conditions 
difficulties,   neither  of  which  is  a  vamped   up  f^y^''^ 
1  p.  147.  2  p.  358. 


238     The  Bible :   Its  Origin  and  Nature 

objection,  but  on  the  contrary  it  is  what  will 
inevitably  occur  to  every  one  who  is  trying  to 
find  a  reasonable  faith.  The  miracles  ascribed 
to  Jesus  are  violations  of  the  uniformity  of 
nature  as  known  to  us,  and  miracles  are  very 
commonly  ascribed  to  the  founders  and  saints 
of  religions.  I  think  both  these  difficulties  are 
removed  if  we  take  into  account  the  occasion^ 
the  nature^  and  the  worker  of  the  Gospel  mira- 
cles. We  may  legitimately  ask  for  stronger 
evidence  for  a  miracle  so  stupendous  as  the 
standing  still  of  the  sun,  the  occasion  being 
merely  to  make  a  defeat  more  crushing.  We 
may  feel  we  have  not  sufficient  evidence  to 
enable  us  cordially  to  accept  that  astounding 
miracle  recorded  by  Matthew  of  the  dead  bodies 
of  the  saints  coming  out  of  their  tombs  appar- 
ently to  accomplish  nothing.  But  the  miracles 
of  healing  and  even  the  miracle  of  the  resur- 
rection do  not  seem  incredible  when  we  con- 
sider the  greatness  of  the  occasion,  the  character 
of  the  miracles  in  question,  and  especially  the 
uniqueness  of  Him  who  wrought  them. 
Huxley's  This  will  be  more  evident  if  we  accept  Hux- 

ley's challenge  and  choose  a  concrete  instance 
with  which  to  compare  the  Gospel  miracles. 
He  asks  in  a  somewhat  triumphant  tone  if  any 
testimony  would   suffice   to   make   it   credible 


challenge. 


a  monstros- 
ity, 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  G-ospels     239 

that  a  centaur  had  been  seen  trotting  down 
Regent  Street.  The  instance  selected  does  not 
show  Huxley's  usual  sagacity,  but  it  enables  us 
to  see  clearly  some  guiding  lines  in  the  com- 
parative study  of  miracles  ;  for  in  two  signifi- 
cant respects  the  supposed  centaur  bears  no 
analogy  to  the  miracles  of  the  Gospels. 

For  (1)  the  centaur  is  itself  a  monstrosity.  The  centaur 
The  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  are  all 
on  the  plane  of  nature.  Feeding  the  hungry, 
healing  the  sick,  raising  the  dead  —  all  these 
are  removals  of  obstructions  which  hinder  na- 
ture from  being  the  perfect  and  direct  expression 
of  God's  goodness  to  man.  They  are  hints  of 
an  ideal  state  which  nature  will  one  day  reach, 
accelerations  of  her  slower  processes.  So  far 
from  the  truth  is  Matthew  Arnold's  dictum 
that  "  from  the  moment  that  the  comparative 
history  of  all  miracles  is  a  conception  enter- 
tained and  a  study  admitted,  the  conclusion  is 
certain  that  the  reign  of  the  Bible  miracles  is 
doomed  "  —  so  far  is  this  from  the  truth  that  it 
is  precisely  when  we  bring  the  miracles  of  Jesus 
into  comparison  with  the  prodigies  of  Greece 
and  Rome  or  the  grotesqueness  of  mediaeval 
miracles,  that  we  more  clearly  than  ever  discern 
the  finger  of  God  and  detect,  perhaps  for  the 
first  time,  the   essential  and  distinctive  char- 


non 


240     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

acter  of  the  works  of  Christ  as  truly  revealing 
the  God  of  the  nature  we  know. 
and  an  (2)  But  secondly  and  especially,  the  centaur 

isolated  •  •     ^    j.    -\       ^  t  p 

phenome-  ^^  ^^  isolated  phenomenon ;  proceeding  from 
nothing,  going  nowhither,  accomplishing  noth- 
ing, signifying  nothing,  meaningless,  irrelevant, 
incredible.  That  a  man  of  Huxley's  sagacity 
should  compare  such  an  apiDearance  to  the  Gos- 
pel miracles  is  another  warning  to  examine 
for  ourselves  ;  another  demonstration  that  the 
ablest  men  may  sometimes  be  satisfied  with 
touching  but  the  surface  of  a  subject.  The 
miracles  of  the  Gospels  were  wrought  by  an 
unique  person,  by  one  who  has  actually  revealed 
God  and  altered  the  world's  attitude  toward 
God  ;  they  were  wrought  as  a  part  of  that  reve- 
lation, and  they  have  actually  lodged  in  men's 
hearts  the  conviction  that  God  is  merciful  and 
kind.  They  appear  as  the  natural  outcome  and 
concomitant  of  a  manifestation  which  had  been 
prepared  for,  and  even  expected,  through  a 
long  previous  history.  Between  miracles  so 
imbedded  in  the  supernatural,  so  congruous  to 
the  circumstances,  and  trailing  such  a  history 
behind  them,  and  a  centaur  trotting  down 
Regent  Street,  where  is  the  analogy? 

But  it  is  precisely  here  where  all  arguments 
against  the  credibility  of  the  Christian  miracles 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Gospels     241 
fall  short.      The  strongest  evidence   in   their  Congruity 

r  •      ii     •  •j_  -ji     ji  1        of  miracles 

lavor  IS  their  congruity  with  the  person  who  y^nh 
wrought  them,  and  with  the  revelation  in  con-  (^^^i^fsper- 
nection  with  which  they  were  wrought ;  and 
this  evidence  is  generally,  one  may  almost  say 
regularly,  left  out  of  account.  In  this  respect 
Matthew  Arnold,  who  compares  them  with  the 
portents  and  prodigies  of  Grecian  history,  is  as 
superficial  as  Huxley.  Of  course  we  should 
find  it  difficult  to  believe  in  the  resurrection  of 
Nero  or  of  Trajan ;  but,  given  a  person  already 
miraculous  in  his  sinlessness,  on  whose  resur- 
rection the  hope  of  the  world  depended,  and  I 
find  the  incredibility  immeasurably  diminished. 
Is  it  nothing  in  favor  of  the  miracles  of  our 
Lord,  that  they  were  wrought  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  greatest  end  that  could  be 
served  in  this  world  ?  Does  it  make  them  no 
more  credible,  that  they  were  relevant,  signifi- 
cant, congruous,  necessary?  The  miracles  are 
Christ's  miracles,  and  that  makes  precisely  all 
the  difference. 

In    prosecuting    the    comparative   study   of  Differentia 
miracles  we  must  not,  then,  be  content  with  miracles.^ 
recognizing   that    supposed    miracles    abound, 
and  that  no  more  credence  can   be   given  to 
those  ascribed  to  Jesus  than  to  those  ascribed 
to  Becket  or  the  Bab.     We  must  consider  the 


242     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 


Are  mira- 
cles useless 
even  though 
proved ? 


Matthew 
Arnold's 
objection. 


differences,  as  well  as  the  likenesses,  which  the 
various  miracles  betray,  and  especially  we  must 
estimate  their  likelihood  by  a  consideration  of 
the  occasion,  the  nature,  and  the  worker  of  the 
miracles  alleged.  Doing  so,  we  find  that  the 
miracles  ascribed  to  Jesus  stand  on  quite  a 
different  footing  from  those  ascribed  to  other 
founders. 

The  other  objection  to  the  acceptance  of  the 
Gospel  miracles  which  one  meets  everywhere 
at  present  is,  that  even  if  provable  they  are 
useless.  The  doctrine  proves  the  miracle, 
rather  than  the  miracle  the  doctrine.  Thus, 
Dr.  Rashdall  says,  "  It  is  not  a  priori  incon- 
ceivable that  in  the  whole  course  of  history 
there  should  be  one  single  exception  to  such 
a  uniform  mode  of  action ;  but  it  may  well  be 
thought  morally  inconceivable  that  any  spiritu- 
ally important  consequences  should  be  depend- 
ent on  the  belief  in  an  historical  event  which 
would  be  so  utterly  incapable  of  establishment 
by  testimony  as  a  supposed  solitary  exception 
to  an  otherwise  uniform  course  of  nature." 

To  this  objection  Matthew  Arnold  has  given 
the  classical  expression  in  his  well-known 
words :  "  One  may  say,  indeed.  Suppose  I 
could  change  the  pen  with  which  I  write  this 
into  a  penwiper;  I  should  not  thus  make  what 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Crospels     243 

I  write  any  the  truer  or  more  convincing. 
That  may  be  so  in  reality,  but  the  mass  of 
mankind  feel  differently.  In  the  judgment 
of  the  mass  of  mankind,  could  I  visibly  and 
undeniably  change  the  pen  with  which  I  write 
this  into  a  penwiper,  not  only  would  this  which 
I  write  acquire  a  claim  to  be  held  perfectly 
true  and  convincing,  but  I  should  even  be 
entitled  to  affirm,  and  to  be  believed  in  affirm- 
ing, propositions  the  most  palpably  at  war  with 
common  fact  and  experience."  ^ 

Every  friend  of  Arnold  must  wish  his  pen  This  a  mis- 
had  been  changed  into  a  penwiper  2  before  he  J'^JJJ^^'"^*""^- 
wrote  this  sentence,  for  it  shows  that  he  mis- 
conceived both  the  nature  and  the  purpose  of 
the  New  Testament  miracles.  It  is  a  libel  on 
the  common  sense  of  the  mass  of  mankind  to 
assert  that  they  would  be  influenced  by  a  mere 
piece  of  legerdemain,  which  had  no  relation  to 
the  truths  to  be  enounced.  We  accept  the 
miracles  of  Christ  because  they  embody  the 
very  thing  to  be  proved.  Miracles  are  not 
gratuitous,  superfluous,  inconvenient,  and  ir- 
relevant credentials;  they  are  themselves 
didactic  and  revealing.     They  were  not  cre- 

1  "Literature  and  Dogma,"  p.  132. 

2  I  seem  to  have  seen  this  somewhere  else ;  but  where, 
I  cannot  tell. 


244     The  Bible :   Its   Origin  and  Nature 

dentials  of  the  kind  that  can  be  examined, 
approved,  and  then  laid  aside  that  the  sub- 
stance of  the  mission  may  be  gone  into.  They 
were  something  very  different  from  the  seal  on 
a  letter  which,  as  soon  as  recognized,  is  torn  off 
and  thrown  away  that  the  contents  of  the  letter 
may  be  read.  They  were  rather  like  the  very 
contents  of  the  letter,  which  in  every  line  re- 
veal and  certify  the  writer.  They  were  like 
the  munificent  gift  which  suggests  but  one 
possible  giver,  the  far-reaching  benefaction 
which  guarantees  its  own  authorship. 
Christ  Him-  But  while  we  believe  that  our  Lord  healed 
^greatest  ^^®  sick,  had  powcr  over  nature,  and  rose  from 
miracle.  i\^q  dead,  the  greatest  miracle  of  all  was  insepa- 
rable from  His  own  person;  the  perfect  man- 
hood, the  ideal  relation  to  God  and  man  He 
constantly  manifested.  It  was  this,  and  no 
external  miracle,  which  drew  to  Him  His  ear- 
liest and  most  devoted  followers.  For,  seeing 
Christ,  it  was  God  men  saw,  and  saw  Him  to 
be  more  and  better  than  they  had  thought. 

To  escape  from  the  supernatural  at  this  point 
by  denying  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  is  a  sorry 
shift.  This  is  the  crowning,  or  root  miracle 
which  lends  credibility  to  all  others  :  a  miracle 
unique  and  separating  Him  from  all  other  men  ; 
a  miracle  which  convinces  us  that  at  this  point. 


The  Miraculous  Element  in  the  Grospels     245 

at  all  events,  He  had  transcended  all  human 
experience  and  passed  into  a  region  beyond 
human  calculation.  Is  a  miracle  in  the  spir- 
itual world  less  or  is  it  greater  than  a  miracle 
in  the  physical?  Which  is  the  more  divine, 
the  turning  water  into  wine  or  the  perfection 
of  character  that  is  impervious  to  sinful  thought 
and  desire?  The  one  thing  is  as  unexampled 
as  the  other,  as  truly  beyond  experience. 

It  is  the  personality  of  Christ  which  enables 
some  to  dispense  with  the  miracles  He  wrought; 
yes,  but  it  is  His  personality,  also,  which  makes 
them  credible. 


DATE  DUE 

:4UN  1 

0  19  7b 

J 

CAYLORO 

ritlNTEOINUS* 

Princeton 


TheoloQical  Seminary  Ljbraries 


11012  01237   7588 


Date  Due 

f    Jk      fiH 

ji  1 6  '4: 

k"  i  -  '4^ 

■•    r 

■  ^  .              :■■% 

&Jf!- 

%-y 

\ 

MR 

?  ii^i 

X 

^ 

